Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 14 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 14 June.

Mr. Speaker: As all the private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 June.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 14 June.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 June.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Questions proposed [10 May],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 14 June.

SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Personal Equity Plans

Mr. French: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his proposals to change PEPs.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The improvements in PEPs, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement, have been widely welcomed.

Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the financial institutions that at one time had deep reservations about the effectiveness of PEPs now welcome them as a most essential, important and attractive component of the savings market? Does he foresee, in respect of either PEPs or TESSAs, the possibility of a similar conversion on the part of the Labour party?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the institutions have put their whole weight behind PEPs, and that is why they are now going extremely well. I am afraid that confused messages are coming from the Opposition about such matters. Some Opposition Members say that they are in favour and some say that they are against. I do not foresee any conversion and certainly there is no uniformity of view among the Opposition.

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the encouragement to small savers since the Government came to office has meant that they have increased in number from 2·75 million to 11 million today?

Mr. Lilley: I am not sure how my hon. Friend defines small savers, but he is perfectly correct that there has been a big increase in their number. As regards personal equity plans, in the first quarter of this year the number of new plans issued was a quarter higher than in the whole of 1988. That is excellent news.

Income Tax

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the basic rate of income tax has been reduced since 1979; and what are his future plans for the rates of income tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): The basic rate of income tax has been reduced from 33 per cent. in 1979 to 25 per cent. in 1990. Moreover, the borrowing requirement, which was a deferred tax liability, has given way in the past three years to a Budget surplus. It is our objective to reduce the basic rate of tax to 20p in the pound, but only as soon as it is prudent and sensible to do so.

Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that every time the Government have reduced the basic rate of income tax, the Labour Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have bitterly opposed the reduction? Is not it the case that had Labour still been in power we would still have a basic rate of 33p in the pound? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, were he to adopt the policies and


commitments in the Labour party's policy review document, the basic rate of income tax would have to be massively increased for everyone? Has not the Labour party always been the high-tax party and will not it always be?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend makes his point entirely clearly. I am not sure that is wholly true to say that the Liberal Democrats have invariably opposed the tax decreases. I think that there was an occasion when they chose not to do so. My hon. Friend is being generous when he suggests that if a Labour Government were in power at the moment we should have a tax rate of 33p in the pound. It might well be noticeably higher. When, in due course, we get round to the detailed costing that Phillips and Drew has already attempted, we may be able to illustrate that it would be higher.

Mr. Beith: Will the Chancellor explain what he meant when he said that it was not prudent to achieve his objective of an income tax rate of 20p in the pound this year? Is he admitting that he is using the level of income tax as a tool of economic and fiscal management? Will not all Governments have to do that?

Mr. Major: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that of course I am, as we have done and as I shall continue to do.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is not it right that the Government have greatly increased personal allowances, so taking out of tax many people at the bottom of the income scale? Does not that give the lie to Opposition parties, which suggest that they are the only people who care about those on lower incomes?

Mr. Major: That is entirely true. By almost any measure—there are a variety that one can use—there has been a considerable increase in personal allowances at the bottom end of the tax scale. That is desirable. It is a deliberate act of policy and, of course, it has kept many people out of tax who otherwise would have been in the tax net.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: This question seems to have been tabled as a direct attack on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I hope that the Chancellor will repudiate it. He will recall the Chief Secretary saying on BBC's "On the Record" on 13 May that the prospect of tax cuts at the moment does not look very good, that these things are always uncertain, but there is very little room for manoeuvre. Will the Chancellor explain to the House why, after 10 years of Conservative Government—a Government who have declared that a further reduction in income tax is their main objective—there is now very little room for manoeuvre? Will he confirm to the House that it is highly unlikely that there ever will be enough room for manoeuvre to enable 24 out of 25 taxpayers to pay income tax at a basic rate of 20p in the pound?

Mr. Major: Whatever else may happen in this Session of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman just won the palm for brass-necked cheek in his comments of the past few moments. There is no dislocation whatever between the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and those that I made at the Dispatch Box a few moments ago. One significant difference that is reflected in what the hon. Gentleman chooses to call the tax burden is that this Government tax honestly for their expenditure and do not

tax for some, borrow for the rest and leave later generations to repay. When the borrowing requirement of the hon. Gentleman's party is taken into account, the tax burden in 1979 was sharply higher than it is today.

Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have shown in the past that reductions in income tax stimulate economic growth and lead to an increase in overall revenue? Will my right hon. Friend take that very much into account when making his tax plans for the future?

Mr. Major: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is ever close to my mind that that virtuous relationship exists. As he may know, the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers will pay 30½ per cent. of total income tax this year compared with 24 per cent. in 1978–79 when the top rate of tax could have been as high as 98 per cent.

European Monetary System

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress on the Madrid conditions for joining the exchange rate mechanism.

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the Madrid conditions concerning the United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system have yet to be fulfilled.

Mr. Bell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects that the conditions for the pound sterling's participation in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system will be fulfilled.

Mr. Major: A good deal of progress has been made in a number of conditions for membership of the exchange rate mechanism, but they have not yet all been met.

Dr. Moonie: Will the Chancellor tell us which condition is likely to be satisfied first: a satisfactory reduction in our underlying rate of inflation or the achievement of a level playing field through the abandonment of subsidies by our European competitors?

Mr. Major: Significant progress has been made in recent months on a number of the external elements that we require before joining the exchange rate mechanism. We have made our position on domestic inflation perfectly clear and I stand by that.

Mr. Wallace: At a recent press conference the Chancellor seemed to suggest that our underlying rate of inflation was much closer to Community averages than a proper statistical approach would reveal. Was he using that figure to try to persuade the Prime Minister that we really should be joining the exchange rate mechanism, and on those grounds should Opposition Members keep quiet about the statistical flaws in his figures?

Mr. Major: It is always a distinct help to the Government if Opposition Members keep quiet, whichever part of the Opposition they may represent. In the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I was drawing attention to the fact that the British rate of inflation appears misleadingly unreasonable compared with those of our European partners simply because we contain within our inflation rate that which other countries


do not, and it was in response to a question about that matter that I made the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Bell: When we enter the exchange rate mechanism, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to do in the summer, will he go in on the tight band of 2½ per cent. or on the broader band of 6 per cent? Will he share his views on that with the House?

Mr. Major: I can neither confirm the date that the hon. Gentleman surreptitiously slipped into his question as an assumption, nor enlighten him on his substantive point.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, regardless of the specific matters spelt out in the Madrid conditions, he will not contemplate the entry of sterling into the exchange rate mechanism until he regards it as fully compatible with the needs of domestic monetary policy and, in particular, that he will not do so at any time when it might mean that interest rates would have to be lowered more or more quickly than is necessary for the proper control of monetary conditions and the reduction of inflation?

Mr. Major: I am acutely conscious of the point to which my right hon. Friend rightly draws attention. The aim of joining the exchange rate mechanism is to support the policy to reduce inflation, not to damage it, and from that, my right hon. Friend will be aware of our policy.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that entry into the exchange rate mechanism is stage one of the Delors proposals? The Delors proposals are supported by all the Commission's bureaucrats and by all the nation states of Europe, with the exception of ourselves. Paragraph 39 asserts that entry into the first stage shall be taken as acceptance of all subsequent stages.

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend has made assertions about what the purpose of stage one might be and about the extent to which that falls within the Delors plan. The fact that the proposal is supported by what he calls the bureaucrats in Brussels does not in itself make it wrong. We have a series of sound economic reasons for joining the exchange rate mechanism. The Government set out the policy that they would join the exchange rate mechanism when certain conditions were met. That remains the policy and it will be in the interests of this country.

Mr. Tim Smith: Now that United Kingdom membership of the exchange rate mechanism has become the fig leaf behind which the Labour party has chosen to hide the private and unpleasant parts of its economic policy, would not we be better advised to join sooner rather than later so that those inadequacies can be exposed to the public for all to see?

Mr. Major: If, as my hon. Friend suggests, the exchange rate mechanism will hide the shortcomings of Labour policies, it will need to be a good deal larger than a fig leaf. It is perfectly clear that the conditions that the Labour party has set out under which it would join the exchange rate mechanism make that pledge——

Mr. Skinner: Not all of us in the Labour party.

Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is correct. The conditions set out by the Labour Front Bench, without the support of the Labour Back

Benches, for joining the exchange rate mechanism are essentially bogus, for the conditions mean that the Labour Front Bench could not enter.

Mr. John Smith: In the context of possible entry into the exchange rate mechanism, will the Chancellor tell us whether the sufficiency of any reduction in inflation will be assessed according to the retail prices index or according to the so-called "underlying" rate of inflation? May I have a direct answer, please?

Mr. Major: The direct answer, as I have often said, is that the rate of inflation will be assessed on the proximate rate of inflation, which means——

Mr. John Smith: The retail prices index or the underlying rate?

Mr. Major: I am coming precisely to the point. The rate of inflation will be assessed not on the RPI, but o n a comparative basis to the measure in which European nations themselves assess inflation. I have repeatedly made that point clear for a long time.

Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when there were recent rumours that this country was about to become a full member of the exchange rate mechanism, the immediate effect was that the stock market rose, the exchange value of sterling became firmer and money market interest rates fell? In view of that positive response, which should have warmed my right hon. Friend's heart towards the idea of joining the exchange rate mechanism immediately, will he bear it in mind that if he felt it necessary to take an executive decision, even while the Prime Minister is abroad, to embark on that, he would earn the recognition of a grateful nation?

Mr. Major: I have had some attractive offers in my time. I am not entirely sure to what extent my hon. Friend's offer ranks among them.
I have made it entirely clear to the House now and on previous occasions that I have reached the judgment that, when the conditions that we have set out are met, it will be right for us to join the exchange rate mechanism. We must be aware of the point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart), drew attention some time ago, that the balance of advantage in due course is clearly to enter the exchange rate mechanism, and in due course that is what we shall do.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what position was taken by the United Kingdom Government in discussions on the European bank for reconstruction and development, in relation to the environmental consequences of any development undertaken.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): The United Kingdom, like all other potential members of the European bank for reconstruction and development, supports the promotion of economically sound and environmentally sustainable development in the full range of its activities.

Mr. Smith: The Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be aware that Mr. Nicholas Brady from the United States Treasury and other European


Finance Ministers have taken the lead in calling for environmental objectives to be built into the role of the development bank. May we assume from the Minister's answer that the British Government will support them enthusiastically? Does he agree that there is a big difference between a lot of talk on green issues and practical proposals such as this, which will clean up eastern Europe?

Mr. Ryder: That is already taken care of in article 2 of the EBRD's constitution.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the recipients of the bank's funds who need to co-ordinate the environmental input into their investment decisions but the industrialised countries of western Europe, which, of course, are the providers of the funds? Is my hon. Friend aware, for example, that the Department of Transport seems to have no accurate comparisons between the environmental input allocated by, say, West Germany or France, as opposed to the environmental input in this country, on transport investment decisions? Would he be so kind as to conduct research within the Finance Ministries of the EEC to see what is actually going on as to the allocation of environmental input in public sector investment decisions?

Mr. Ryder: In so far as that question affects the EBRD, I shall of course ensure that Mr. Attali, when he gets down to his job in London shortly, is made aware of the points that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Economic Secretary will be aware that article 2 of the bank's constitution contains a general provision
to promote in the full range of its activities environmentally sound and sustainable development.
He will also be aware that that provision is due to the leadership and insistence of the United States, not that of the British Government. What practical steps, rather than words, do the British Government intend to take to ensure that that objective is carried out?

Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with article 2 of the EBRD's constitution, he should be aware that the EBRD must report annually on the environmental implications of all its policies.

Taxes

Mr. Hague: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxes have been abolished since 1979.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Five: the investment income surcharge, the national insurance surcharge, development land tax, tax on lifetime gifts and capital duty. Moreover, in his 1990 Budget, my right hon. Friend announced the abolition of stamp duty on share transactions from late 1991–92 and the abolition of composite rate tax.

Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that fine achievement is still incomplete? Will he undertake to abolish in the next Parliament as many as possible of the taxes remaining in this Parliament? I suggest for early inclusion stamp duty on house purchase and inheritance tax.

Mr. Lamont: It remains the Government's objective to find taxes that can be abolished and certainly to simplify the tax system. My hon. Friend might also have noticed

that, whereas we have abolished five taxes, in its policy document the Labour party proposes the addition of five brand new taxes.

Mr. Ashton: Is not there one tax that the Government have brought in which should be abolished—the poll tax? Is not it a fact that, for every tax that he has abolished, the Chancellor has abolished many benefits, many jobs and all the other things that go with public expenditure that Labour supported?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have dramatically cut the burden of income tax and that that has gone alongside a considerable improvement in living standards, which have increased dramatically during the past decade.

Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent record, but is he aware of the disappointment among my hon. Friends that he has not been able to abolish inheritance tax, especially for small businesses? In view of the tremendous contribution that small businesses make to the economy in general, and to employment in particular, if my right hon. Friend cannot abolish inheritance tax, will he at least ease its quite unjustified burden?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that we have dramatically reformed the punitive rates of taxation on businesses in capital transfer tax and that we have greatly increased the reliefs for businesses, which make it much easier for small businesses to be transferred from one generation to another. That has been recognised by the small business lobby, but I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mrs. Beckett: In pursuit of the objective of honest taxation, which was identified by the Chancellor a few moments ago, will the Chief Secretary now give us the other side of the balance sheet and list the taxes that have been increased under this Government, starting with VAT and national insurance contributions, and finishing with the poll tax?

Mr. Lamont: As I have already pointed out in reply to the main question, although indirect taxes have been increased, they are taken into account when measuring real standards of living—and real standards of living have dramatically increased on a per annum basis far more than ever happened when the Labour party was in power.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest benefits to the regional economies has been abolition of the taxation and bureaucratic burdens that lay upon them? Will he speculate on the damaging effects of a payroll tax and a regional assembly with taxation powers of its own, as proposed by the Labour party?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party is proposing new tax-raising powers for an elected Scottish Assembly. It has also advanced the idea of a training levy, which would be yet another new tax on jobs. We know that when it was in power the Labour party imposed taxes on jobs and destroyed jobs through the tax system.

Invisibles

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he forecast for the surplus on invisibles in 1990 in the 1989 autumn statement; and what is his latest forecast.

Mr. Norman Lamont: A total of £6 billion and £1½ billion.

Mr. Lloyd: The Chief Secretary will understand my scepticism about his forecasts, given the Government's bad historic record of forecasting the balance of payments. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when Opposition Members have complained about the deficit on manufactures, his Government have frequently told us that we should not worry about that because everything would be made up by the invisibles? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was a mistake so to damage the manufacturing sector that it is incapable of performing in the way that the nation needs? What does he intend to do to ensure that global shortfall in the balance of payments is made up?

Mr. Lamont: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about forecasts, the Government's forecasts on the current account do not differ substantially from those of the vast majority of outside forecasters. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) described the forecasts of the Government of which he was a Member as being rather like long-range weather forecasts—better than nothing. We have a higher opinion of our forecasts than that.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the deterioration on the invisibles account. That is due to a number of factors to which I referred at our previous Question Time, including the timing of EC payments. That is why, despite what happened in the last quarter of last year, we are expecting the position to improve according to the forecasts that I have given to the House.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought in future to whether, when publishing the invisibles figures, a clearer distinction might be made between interest and dividends received, intergovernmental payments, and the sale of services to non-residents—all of which are conceptually different elements in the national income account, and distinguishing between them might avoid some of the confusion that has given rise to some of the questions this afternoon?

Mr. Lamont: I shall certainly look into the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Several points have been made about the compilation of the invisibles account, including, for example, the fact that appreciation of our overseas assets does not score, although it might be argued that it should count against interest payments and dividends.

Dr. Marek: The Chief Secretary might be squirming, after 10 years, that his Government have achieved the record that the tax burden has increased sharply since 1979. The total tax burden is much higher now.

Mr. Major: No.

Dr. Marek: Yes, it is, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it. He also knows that the balance of payment on our visibles is much lower now than it was in 1979. He has achieved the unique record after 10 years of

his Administration that he managed to wipe out the balance of payments on our invisibles in the last quarter of the last year. Instead of simply telling the House that he expects this shameful state of affairs to improve, will he tell the House precisely why he expects it to do so?

Mr. Lamont: I explained carefully to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) why we expected an improvement in invisibles. We also expect an improvement on the current account because we expect the economy to slow down as a result of the measures that we have already taken. We have repeated that on many occasions.

Charitable Giving

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of his proposals to assist charitable giving.

Mr. Lilley: The cost will depend on take-up, but m ay rise to about £15 million.

Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that charitable giving has doubled in the past 10 years and say how much the cost of tax relief has increased over that period?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right that the amount of charitable giving in Britain has more than doubled in real terms during the past decade. Tax relief has risen in real terms by 120 per cent. and has been a major stimulus in that welcome increase.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the Adam Smith Institute, a right-wing think tank and the keeper of the sacred flame of Thatcherism, benefits under the legislation governing charities? Is it fair that it can call itself a charity? Is not that an abuse of charity law and should not the law be changed?

Mr. Lilley: I can neither confirm nor deny the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, he could look it up in the public records. However, I have been lobbied in the past on behalf of the Fabian Society for alleviation of inheritance tax. Apparently it receives a large proportion of its moneys from inheritances from deceased members.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What does my hon. Friend think would be the effect on charitable giving if the 171 promises for increased spending in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change" were implemented, estimated by Phillips and Drew at £19·5 billion?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Undoubtedly, the increase in charitable giving was due not only to the physical incentives that we gave but to the fact that people have more money in their pockets because taxes are lower. They are able and willing to give more. If that were not the case charitable giving would decrease, as it would under the heavy and increased burden of tax which the Labour party would impose.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the increase in charitable giving, does the Minister agree that many charities are disappointed that more citizens and taxpayers have not used the give-as-you-earn scheme?

Mr. Lilley: I confirm that there is considerable scope for improvement in the use of the scheme that we have introduced. However, last year the number of donors


through the payroll giving scheme increased by 50 per cent. and the amounts given increased by 100 per cent. I pay tribute to the level of giving of all kinds in the hon. Gentleman's Province. Although the Province has the lowest income, it has the highest level of giving per head and is an example to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Smith: Why is not inheritance tax paid in respect of donations to political parties? What justification can there be for that?

Mr. Lilley: Because the decision was taken, alongside other changes in inheritance tax, by the Committee that considered the Finance Bill last year, without a great deal of dissent.

Investment Growth (EC)

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total investment growth in the 1980s across European Community countries.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Since 1980 growth of total investment has averaged 2·1 per cent. a year across EC countries.

Mr. Thompson: Do not those figures confirm that Britain and our European partners are preparing well for 1992? Does not that provide a sound basis for future export performance? Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the confidence recently shown by business men in Norwich about future export performance?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our investment performance compares well with that of other countries. The average for the European Community is 2·1 per cent., whereas total investment in this country between 1980 and 1989 has gone up by an average of about 4½ per cent. a year. That is an extremely impressive record.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the Minister rather easily impressed? He should look at the answer given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday in which he suggested that had we achieved a rate of increase in manufacturing investment during the lifetime of the Government comparable to that achieved by France and West Germany we would have had £18 billion more investment and, according to the Chancellor's figures given in that answer, had we achieved the rate attained under the previous Labour Government, we would have had an extra £30,000 million of manufacturing investment. Does not that explain why we are unprepared for 1992?

Mr. Lamont: Opposition Members do not like it when we give some of the good facts about the British economy. That is why the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) chose to make a press announcement this morning to celebrate the opening of the World Cup by saying that British economic performance compares badly with that of Italy. During the 1980s, however, we have grown faster than Italy; our investment and manufacturing output has been better and our unemployment rate is lower. Our rate of inflation, based on a comparable measure, is also lower. I fear that the hon. Lady has scored an own goal, and it is a pity. Like Bobby Robson, she ought to play for England.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures are encouraging even if they do not meet

the needs of the Opposition? Does he also agree, however, that one of the most important things that we must do is to encourage manufacturing industry to invest in new plant and machinery? When we come to consider new concessions they should be given to manufacturing industry, not to private individuals through individual taxation.

Mr. Lamont: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion; perhaps he is making an early Budget representation. He will also have noticed that in the past couple of years manufacturing investment has grown strongly. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his concern for manufacturing industry in his constituency, will have welcomed that strong growth.

Mortgages

Mr. Watson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the percentage of total mortgage holders who pay interest on an annualised basis.

Mr. Ryder: More than 40 per cent. of building society borrowers are members of annual review schemes. No precise information is available on banks and other mortgage lenders.

Mr. Watson: Will the Secretary of State assure those millions of people, of whom I am one, who have their mortgage payments adjusted annually in the spring, that the next time they are adjusted they can look forward to a reduction in payments?

Mr. Ryder: Interest rates will remain as high as necessary for as long as necessary to bear down on inflation. Once inflation has been conquered in that way, interest rates might come down.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical for Opposition Members to talk about the impact of interest rates on mortgages when they opposed the right to buy and when their roof tax would bankrupt many householders?

Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party is growing increasingly unsure of itself as those sorts of charges are made.

Mr. Boateng: When the Economic Secretary attacked yesterday inaccurate and misleading advertising of mortgages, was he referring to either or both of the following, beginning respectively:
John Major might take a year to cut"—
[Interruption ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We paraphrase at Question Time.

Mr. Boateng: Was he referring to either or both advertisements that suggest that the Chancellor might cut mortgage rates or that the surest way in which to ensure that mortgage rates come down is to bring about a general election in which case there would be nothing to pay? When he was referring to misleading mortgage advertisements—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in order. He is not quoting now.

Mr. Boateng: When the Minister was referring to misleading mortgage advertisements, did he have in mind


perhaps the biggest-ever misadvertisement for mortgages—that there was any prospect of interest rates coming down in the immediate future and some relief being given to people who are suffering the enormous mortgage misery that affects so many home owners and home buyers in Britain?

Mr. Ryder: That was a poor advertisement for a sound bite. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

Business Investment

Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount total business investment has increased in real terms over the past three years for which figures are available.

Mr. Lamont: Business investment grew by over 40 per cent. in real terms in the three years to 1989, the largest increase over a three-year period since the war.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most encouraging aspect of the investment scene is the amount of investment being made in this country by foreign companies, illustrated this week by the Invest in Britain Bureau, which announced that up to 15 March this year, 233 investments had been made in Britain? It was illustrated also by the fact that 40 per cent. of all Japanese investment in the European Community came to this country, 9 per cent. went to West Germany and only 6 per cent. went to France, proving that other countries know the fundamental strength of the United Kingdom economy.

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This country does well, compared with its competitors, in the receipt of Japanese and American investment. That investment has been into certain key sectors, and there have been particularly important investments in the motor industry. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Madden: Will the Chief Secretary mount an urgent investigation into the latest small business to be registered in Britain, National Front Printers Ltd? Will he ensure that that company, which seems to have come into being aided and abetted by officials and possibly Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, does not enjoy any tax reliefs or other benefits from the Treasury?

Mr. Lamont: That does not arise out of this question.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of that massive business investment has been in manufacturing industries in Yorkshire, and particularly in my constituency, and that it has contributed to reducing unemployment? Will he congratulate the wool textile export companies which are managing in difficult times to increase their exports?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last year, manufacturing investment grew by about 6¼ per cent. to reach its highest-ever level, and I agree with her comments about the wool textile industry.

Mortgage Rates

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Chancellor of tht, Exchequer when he will next meet the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss mortgage rates.

Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss mortgage rates.

Mr. Major: I have no present plans to do so, although I recently met the chairman of the organisation, Mr. Birrell.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Chancellor accept that the smug levity with which the Economic Secretary answered the previous question about mortgage rates paid scant respect to the hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering profoundly because of the Chancellor's one-club policy on interest rates? Does he accept that, according to the Building Societies Association, over 400,000 families in Britain are subject to legal action for recovery of arrears because of the mounting problems of interest and mortgage rates? Does he have any message of comfort to offer those people, many of them in my constituency, or is what he has to offer represented only by the kind of rubbish that we heard from the Economic Secretary?

Mr. Major: There was neither rubbish nor smug levity in what my hon. Friend said. If the hon. Gentleman consults the Council of Mortgage Lenders or the Building Societies Association, they will tell him without reservation that mortgage arrears account for only a small amount of repossessions and that the principal problems that cause repossessions and other difficulties are marriage break-ups and other marital concerns. They have repeatedly made that clear, and Mr. Mark Boleat of the Building Societies Association did so yet again in recent days.

Mr. Sedgemore: When the Chancellor is told by his Permanent Secretary that 70,000 mortgage holders are six months or more in arrears does he say to himself, "How could I conceivably have been so incompetent, so ignorant and so irresponsible as to ruin the lives of so many people?"—or does he not care?

Mr. Major: I understand the concern of people with mortgage difficulties. The hon. Gentleman, who phrased his question with his usual charm, should bear it in mind that the number of borrowers in serious difficulties remains a very tiny proportion, as traditionally they have been. He will be aware, because I know that he takes an interest in this matter, that the Council of Mortgage Lenders recently issued all sorts of indications of precisely how the lending societies can help people who are in mortgage difficulties. The societies are doing so and I hope that they will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have been asked to reply.
Mr right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given an address at the luncheon of the North Atlantic Council at Turnberry. Later today she will begin a visit to the Soviet Union.

Mr. Janner: As the Prime Minister is about to leave for the Soviet Union to lecture people there about how to run a free market economy, will the deputy Prime Minister use his moment of freedom to tell the House and the nation why he thinks our economy is in such a shambles? What does he say to our constituents who cannot meet their mortgage instalments and to industrialists and employers facing ruin because of the high levels of inflation and mortgages? What does he say about the unparalleled trade deficit and to people labouring under the unfair chaos of the poll tax? What does he say—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not fair to take so long.

Mr. Janner: How can this Government lecture others when they have ruined our economy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will find that the people and the leadership of the Soviet Union will envy the record of this Government's management of our economy over the past 10 years. The problems today are put into perspective by the fact that manufacturing investment this year is advancing on the record level of last year which was itself a record on the year before.

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Couchman: In view of the link between listeria and French brie, the hallucinatory effect of French wines, the carcinogenous effect of Perrier water and the certain transmissibility of mad frogs disease, will my right hon. and learned Friend make contingency plans to impose a ban on all French agricultural products and comestibles lest France should fail to honour the agreement that was signed in Brussels this morning?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about the way in which matters have proceeded in the last few days. However, he must understand that the most important conclusion is that there should be a properly operating free market in agricultural produce throughout the Community in compliance with the law. I am sure that he will be glad to know that this morning the European Council of Agriculture Ministers reached agreement to end the ban on imports of British beef to other continental countries. The agreement will be considered by legal and scientific experts this afternoon. The Council will reconvene to give its approval to the documents produced. All member states will accept imports of British beef from tonight, and the European Community Commission has reaffirmed its belief that British beef is safe.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hopes, by leave of the House, to make a statement on these matters at the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Safety Bill.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Lord President tell the House what the standard rate of income tax will be after the next Budget?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In all the questions asked by shadow spokesmen over many years that one beats all records for stupidity. One matter that Chancellors of the

Exchequer like, properly, to reserve to their Budget statement is the level at which income tax will be fixed for the year ahead. The nation can take great comfort from the fact that for the past 11 years a succession of Chancellors have progressively introduced lower and lower rates of income tax.

Mr. Hattersley: My only criticism of that answer is that I think that the question is even more stupid than the right hon. and learned Gentleman made out. As there is unanimous agreement that he cannot predict the level of taxes under this Government in six months' time, will he ask the chairman of the Tory party to stop asking for predictions about the level of taxation under the next Labour Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to say that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer under this Government have set targets for the reduction of income tax and achieved those targets. This nation continues to display a constant interest in the prospect of tax policy from the Labour party, if that were ever to be relevant. The real point is that the Labour party cannot carry any conviction as a tax-cutting party when successive Labour Governments have always put taxes up.

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it remains the Government's policy to protect working people from excessive mass picketing and secondary action, and will he take every opportunity to explain this policy to trade union leaders, perhaps by taking up some of the many invitations to attend trade union conferences that have been rejected by the cocoonist advisers of the Leader of the Opposition?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to take this opportunity to remind the House and the nation that if there were to be a Labour Government, introducing the industrial relations policies of which the Labour party talks, there would be a risk of a return to mass picketing and the disgraceful scenes, to which the House became accustomed, outside premises such as Grunwick. We should be interested to know why the Leader of the Opposition has shown himself so unwilling to explain his policies, even on this matter, to the trade union movement.

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend turn his mind again to the subject of beef? Is not it now certain that the French and German Governments have contravened article 30 of the treaty of Rome, and must therefore compensate our farmers for the substantial financial losses that they have suffered over the past few weeks, or are we to have partners who want all the privileges of free trade but none of the obligations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for the rules and obligations of the Community to be uniformly applied and observed throughout the Community. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has today been successful in securing the commitment that he has secured at the Council of Ministers.
My right hon. Friend will be able to deal with my hon. Friend's point in his statement this evening.

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: Has the deputy Prime Minister had the opportunity to examine what is happening in the water industry, with the £5 billion that the Government wrote off in debts, the £1·6 billion that was given for the so-called green dowry and the fact that the taxpayer lost in general over £3 billion on privatisation? Is he aware that water charges have increased by more than double the rate of inflation, that in Yorkshire the standing charge has doubled, which means that the people who use least pay most in unit costs, and that the connection charge in Yorkshire has increased from £300 to £1,150? Is not that a shocking and abysmal record? Is not it time that the House had a chance to discuss the situation in the water industry, and who runs it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that one of the closing acts of the last Labour Government—now many years ago—was savagely to cut investment in the then publicly owned water industry. A principal reason why the private sector, on assuming responsibility for the industry, must now make substantial investments is as the consequence of years of neglect under public ownership and Labour Governments.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is apparently possible to increase Government spending by many billions of pounds while, we are told, it is unnecessary to raise income tax on people whose incomes are equal to or less than that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot begin to explain such reasoning. The House will remember that under previous Labour Governments spending, borrowing and taxes increased, and that income tax payers were especially affected.

Ms. Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Quin: The Government are on record as saying that they want to help the countries of eastern Europe to tackle the problems of environmental pollution. Of course, that is vital, but what example are we giving eastern Europe by failing to insist on a full programme of flue gas desulphurisation for our power stations? Moreover, the

Secretary of State for the Environment—who is in Brussels today—will apparently argue for a weakening of the EEC commitment to curb emissions of carbon dioxide?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The lesson is that the Government have introduced an effective and comprehensive programme for environmental improvement in relation to all forms of pollution. The realism of our target for carbon dioxide reduction has been specifically confirmed by Dr. Houghton, chairman of the working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He has the best evidence available in relation to our proposals.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the Government's support for Manchester as the venue for the 1996 Olympics? Does he agree that that would be good not just for the north-west of England, but for the entire country, and will he ignore the sour-grapes attitude that has been adopted by certain people in the Birmingham area?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not responsible for the attitude of people in the Birmingham area, but I gladly confirm that Manchester is Britain's preferred candidate. Manchester and the north-west have a long and illustrious sporting tradition, and we are glad to support it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the president of the International Olympic Committee in support of Manchester's bid.

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that nearly all the textile mills in my area have closed? Is he further aware that three more are now to close, including the Mars mill at Castleton, with the loss of 540 jobs? Will he tell the House what the Government will do to help the textile industry, and those workers who have been thrown on the industrial scrapheap?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government will continue to support the textile industry in the negotiations that we undertake within the context of GATT and the multi-fibre arrangement. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the most recent survey produced at the beginning this week by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce shows that nearly two thirds of firms expect to increase their export orders, and nearly three out of five expect to increase their work forces in the year ahead. There is substantial evidence for the belief that export performance will continue to improve.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Hugh Rossi. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Mr. Alan Williams.

Mr. Alan Williams: Thank you for an unexpected surprise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Williams: May I, in turn, refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to a question I put to the Chief Secretary a short time ago? He failed to answer it, so I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do so. Will he confirm what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Tuesday—that manufacturing investment in this country would have been £30,000 million higher under this

Government had the growth rate under the Labour Government been maintained? Does he think that that is a major factor in explaining why a surplus of £6,000 million on manufacturing trade has deteriorated into a deficit of £16,000 million?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must have failed to hear the point I made earlier, when I said that even in the current year manufacturing investment is expected to increase. Last year was itself a record for manufacturing investment, as was the year before. Total business investment has increased by some 40 per cent. during the past three years. That is a substantial record of achievement, and it will be maintained.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 JUNE—There will be a debate on European Community affairs with a motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community July to December 1989 (Cm. 1023).
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill.
TUESDAY 12 JUNE—Second Reading of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Motion to take note of EC document relating to Community railway policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 13 JUNE—Remaining stages of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill.
THURSDAY 14 JUNE—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate on training followed by a debate on low income statistics. Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Third Replenishment) Order.
FRIDAY 15 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 18 JUNE—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the defence estimates 1990 (Cm. 1022/1 and 1022/2) (1st day).

[Tuesday 12 June:

Relevant European Community Document

4478/90 Community Railway Policy

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 11—xvi (1989–90) para 3

Thursday 14 June:

Estimates, 1990–91, class VI, vote 1.

Third report from the Employment Committee of Session 1989–90 on Employment Training (House of Commons Paper No. 427) and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 2 May 1990 (House of Commons Paper No. 394-i), so far as it relates to training.

Estimates, class XIV, vote 7.

Fourth report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1987–88, "Families on Low Income: Low Income Statistics" (House of Commons Paper No. 565), the Government's reply to that Report (Cm. 523), the fourth report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, "Low Income Statistics" (House of Commons Paper No. 376), and memoranda laid before the Committee: "Households Below Average Income: A regional analysis 1980–85", a study commissioned by the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, ( House of Commons Paper No. 378-I) and "The Income Support System and the Distribution of Income in 1987", a study commissioned by the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, (House of Commons Paper No. 378-II.)]

Dr. Cunningham: As the Prime Minister is making a timely visit to Moscow, at a time of important movements

in world and European events, can we be assured that on her return to this country she will make a statement in this Chamber on her discussions with President Gorbachev?
Can we now hope that, as the Police Federation conference has taken place, the House will at last have the opportunity to debate, as it should have done many weeks ago, the Police (Amendment) Regulations order concerning the implications of poll tax for policemen and women and their families? Given the latest news of mounting chaos in towns and cities in Britain because of the nightmare of trying to administer that bureaucratic, expensive and unfair tax, should not we have the opportunity to debate the poll tax as soon as possible? I hope that the Leader of the House can now confirm that that long overdue opportunity will be given to the House.
When we debate developments in the European Community on Monday, who will be speaking on behalf of the Government? Will it be the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry giving his view of Government policy on Europe or will it be the Foreign Secretary—or will we hear one view at the beginning of the debate and the other view at the end?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I invite the hon. Gentleman to react in full, as I doubt whether he has yet, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will find that it contains many points that are almost exactly in line with those that I made in a speech a week before and which represent a contribution to the important developments that will take place during the years ahead in the EC. It is right that such matters should be advanced.
As for long overdue opportunities, we have been waiting now, I think, since 3 April for the fully worked out alteration to the poll tax which the Opposition's director of communications told us their major policy statement would contain, but we still wait in vain. That is the long overdue opportunity.

Dr. Cunningham: That is not relevant to next week's business.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nor was the hon. Gentleman's original question.
The police orders have been the subject of active discussion through the usual channels, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I am concerned to see that they are debated at a reasonably early stage. I shall make an announcement about the arrangements for their debate in my next business statement.
I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement in the ordinary way on her return from the Soviet Union.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: In view of the continued representations from the Liaison Committee, is my right hon. and learned Friend yet in a position to announce that he will take steps to amend Standing Orders so that the Select Committee on Health and Social Security can be divided in order to conform with the split into two Departments?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can confirm that the Government are prepared to agree that there should be separate Select Committees to reflect the split in the Department of Health and Social Security. I think that it would be for the general convenience of the House if those arrangements were to take effect from the beginning of the next Session.

Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the statement that the Leader of the House has just made, but will he confirm that the House will have a chance to vote on the proposal so that the two new Select Committees can start operation at the beginning of the new Session?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall need to think about the precise point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly consider it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question relating particularly to his responsibilities as Leader of the House? May we have a debate soon on Short money? After all, as of this week, we are one party fewer and one campaign more. When does a campaign become a party? How energetic does it have to be? Would I, as an ordinary Back Bencher, qualify to become a campaign and receive Short money, particularly since I am as energetic as any Member of the former Democratic party? In fact, none of them are here today.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's entitlement to qualify for Short money, but it is clear from his valuable contribution that he is not short of ideas.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Leader of the House tell us now or next week the arrangements for right hon. and hon. Members to see the closed-circuit experiment on sign language for deaf people of our proceedings?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House about that. As he will recollect, it follows from the experiment on subtitling just before the recess. The recording of Prime Minister's questions, accompanied by on-screen signing for the deaf, will be played back in the No Lobby between 5 and 6 pm today and on Tuesday and Thursday of next week. The broadcasting Select Committee wants the reactions of as many Members as possible to both experiments so that we can assess the acceptability of on-screen signing to the House. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will have a chance to look at the recordings either today or next week.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: The House of Lords is constitutionally entitled to overturn the War Crimes Bill, but this House, as the elected Chamber, is entitled to overrule it. When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect that we shall have an opportunity to discuss that important moral and constitutional issue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of that topic, which has been debated in both Houses more than once. Both Houses have now voted on the matter in opposite directions, by substantial majorities. Clearly it is right that we should have an opportunity to reflect on that, in view of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday.

Mr. James Wallace: We are to have a debate on low income statistics next week, but will the Leader of the House turn his mind to a much wider debate on Government statistics—particularly as, last night, the Secretary of State for Health used some very doubtful statistics in supporting the Government's policy

of imposing eye test charges? The Secretary of State's statistics were totally at variance with both a survey by my own party of 1,700 opticians and a report by the Consumers Association that is to be published tomorrow. Given the importance of eye tests in preventive health, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have another rally around the course—this time, using proper statistics?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have never yet encountered a topic on which there has not been an ample choice of statistics. I dare say that that is true in respect of the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday presented effective statistics, but I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for his announcement concerning the future of the Select Committee on Social Services. The work load being undertaken by that Committee is becoming intolerable, monitoring as it does one half of total Government expenditure.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement in the House on the progress of the negotiations concerning the multi-fibre arrangement? I understand from the textile and clothing industry that Britain's Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is standing out against practically every other country, in seeking to phase out the MFA over five years when most of the other countries concerned—and third-world countries in particular—seek a 10-year phasing out. May Britain's important textile and clothing industry, which still employs nearly 500,000 people and is concerned for their future, expect a statement soon from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The topic of the MFA and its relationship to the textile industry is raised in the House on many occasions—quite often by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I am not in a position today to add anything fresh, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: When may we have an opportunity to debate the implications of pit closures? Is the Leader of the House aware that British Coal announced yesterday the closure of Denby Grange colliery—the last remaining pit in my constituency—with the loss of about 500 jobs? That makes total job losses in the Wakefield area under the present Government number 16,000. Is not it scandalous that not one scrap of Government help has been given to Wakefield district to help generate alternative employment? When will the Government give up worshipping market forces and start thinking about human beings for a change?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Decisions on pit closures remain a matter for the British Coal Corporation. The Government are not able to intervene, and do not seek to do so. In making such announcements, British Coal is following the procedure agreed with the unions. The coal industry, like any other, depends above all on competitiveness and


efficiency for its survival. I am glad to say that there have been substantial improvements in its productivity in recent years, and we hope that it will be maintained.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to express their concern at the news that Mr. Gorbachev is apparently threatening to restrict the emigration of Soviet Jews—particularly as there seems to be a misapprehension that a significant number of Soviet Jews are settling on the west bank, which they are not?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises two relatively distinct points. Over the years, the House has shared his concern for the freedom for Jewish people, among others, to emigrate from the Soviet Union. So far as it is necessary to do so, I am sure that that matter will be in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this week.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite all the efforts made over the years to preserve the lives of kidney patients, recent reports have shown that no fewer than 1,200 people die unnecessarily every year because of the lack of donor kidneys? Is it not possible to take advantage of the fact that 75 per cent. of people are willing to donate kidneys? They cannot currently be accepted, because the system has failed. May we debate that subject next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman seldom fails to raise a point of importance, and the issue that he has just raised is one with which the whole House will have sympathy. He raises so many that I could fill almost every week with debates at his request. I shall consider that request as sympathetically as I can.

Mr. Robin Squire: Is it my right hon. and learned Friend's intention to schedule a London debate before the House rises for the summer recess, as it has been many a month since we last had the opportunity to discuss issues affecting London—including, of course, the many successes of Conservative councils within the city?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend offers a beguiling reason why we should have such a debate at an early opportunity. I am not sure how far I shall be able to be beguiled by him.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Given that the Stevens inquiry stated clearly, without any ambiguity, that there was collusion between the police and terrorist groupings in Northern Ireland, and given the penetrating insights of the Yorkshire Television programme "Shoot to Kill" at the weekend, will the Leader of the House ensure that we get an opportunity soon to debate those fundamental issues within the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Neither Mr. Stalker's nor Mr. Sampson's inquiry found evidence of any offence, such as incitement to murder, as would he comprised within what has loosely been called a "shoot-to-kill" policy. There is not and there never has been any such policy in Northern Ireland. No doubt there will be opportunities in the weeks ahead for debates on that and other matters affecting Northern Ireland.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that virtually every day

there is a new report of the closure of some reservoir or lake because of toxic blue-green algae spreading across it, following the appalling incident last September in my constituency, when 23 sheep and 15 dogs died? Since this is now clearly becoming a serious national pollution problem, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about the matter next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot arrange to have a statement on that matter next week, but I can and will arrange to draw the strong manner in which my hon. Friend expresses his view to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. David Winnick: Is not it important that there should be a debate on the War Crimes Bill as quickly as possible, since all the evidence shows that there remains a large majority in this House who believe that the Bill should proceed? Is not it important that, if there is a conflict between the two Houses, the views of the elected Chamber must prevail?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is precisely that question which requires reflection. It is only 72 hours since the other place debated the matter. Both Houses have considered it carefully on more than one occasion and have reached conclusions by large majorities in opposite directions. It is plainly good sense to allow some reasonable period to elapse to allow full consideration of what was said in the debates in both Houses.

Sir Bernard Braine: May I dissent from the view that my right hon. and learned Friend has just expressed? There is widespread indignation in the country, as one poll has already demonstrated this morning, arid there is strong feeling on both sides of the House, that wrong action—wrong both constitutionally and morally—has been taken by the other place. Surely the best thing is for this House to resolve, as quickly as it possibly can, where it stands on the matter and what it wants done.

Mr. Winnick: Well said.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the strength of feeling on the subject of my right hon. Friend the Father of the House. Both Houses of Parliament have contributions to make to the proceedings of Parliament, and it is right for the views expressed by each House on a matter of this gravity to be considered carefully in both Houses. I understand the strong feelings expressed by my right hon. Friend, but it is a matter on which there are strong feelings not only on both sides of the House but on both sides of the question.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Leader of the House accept that there has been a disastrous effect on the shellfish industry caused by the fishing ban, and the disorganised methods used by the Government to introduce it? Will he accept that there are important unanswered questions, such as why the industry was never consulted and why certain species were banned, yet two days later the ban was lifted on the flimsiest of grounds? Will he also study the situation, as compensation should be offered to the shellfish fishermen, given the state of the industry? As so many Government Departments were involved, and the industry is in deep trouble at present, can we have an urgent debate on the subject?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the anxiety felt by those in the industry about the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a statement about one aspect of it in the House on Tuesday, and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of the persistent and undenied rumours that the Prime Minister has withdrawn her veto on our entry of the exchange rate mechanism, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that whoever speaks for the Government on Monday explains how it is that it will be posible to resolve the conflict between a rigged exchange rate and the requirements of domestic monetary policy and, having entered into stage 1 of the Delors proposals, how we shall avoid being dragged by the Commission and the other nation states of the EEC into stages 2 and 3, with a single central bank and a single currency?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It sounds as though my hon. Friend is likely to make a speech in Monday's debate, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, of as much interest as usual. Having attended the Madrid summit in which we set out quite clearly the conditions on which we would join the exchange rate mechanism, I must confess that I do not recognise his description of a veto in respect of that matter. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it plain in her speech in Aberdeen that membership of the European exchange rate mechanism was entirely consistent with effective and strong domestic monetary policy.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement this afternoon from the Secretary of State for Transport on the safety implications of the management-engineered dispute involving some 7,000 British Airways workers at Heathrow? Is he aware that I have an eight-page list of 75 engineering faults and incidents that occurred in the 11 days up to Tuesday of this week, many of which could be life threatening? For example, on Sunday, the captain of a Boeing 747 reported that the engine fire detection loop was unserviceable, yet he was given dispensation to take off. Has nothing been learnt from Kegworth? Why will not the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority come clean about the risk to passengers flying British Airways out of Heathrow?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman made the most helpful contribution that could have been made on cool consideration of the subject. I am advised that safety is not compromised and that aircraft are properly certified as safe before they fly.

Mr. Robert Dunn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us representing constituencies in the county of Kent are becoming extremely concerned and anxious about the delay in an announcement as to the final route of the high-speed link? Is he aware that we were promised an announcement at the end of March, again at the end of April and again at the end of May? We are now well into June and the continuing delay is causing great hardship, counter-rumour and upset to many people in north-west, mid and south Kent? Will

he please therefore undertake to make the strongest representations possible to those who are responsible for making an announcement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend, together with others of my hon. Friends who represent Kentish constituencies, makes a point which he is entitled to make, and of course I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. There will be some opportunity to refer to the matter in the debate next Tuesday on the document relating to Community railway policy, but I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Lord President's announcement about splitting the Select Committee on Social Services, when does he hope to report progress in setting up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland as that also affects the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot take that matter any further today than I have on previous occasions. I shall of course discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate about the quality of the postal services in this country? Does he agree that the recent report by the Mail Users' Association has fully demonstrated the need to introduce competition into the postal services?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the quality of those services is not a matter that concerns only my hon. Friend. I shall certainly draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to see whether there is an opportunity for it to be considered more widely.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman yet found time to mug up on the need for an up-to-date maritime archaeology Bill, a matter which I raised with him many months ago and about which he appeared singularly uninformed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has been so uncharacteristically episodic in his references to the matter that, although I mugged it up some time ago, I am now almost as ill-formed as I was when he first raised it. However, I will be in touch with him when I have had another look at the matter.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, according to some sources in the Soviet Union, over 60 per cent. of Soviet agricultural production never reaches the consumer because of defects in the storage and transportation systems there.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Forty per cent.

Mr. Sayeed: Over 60 per cent. of Soviet agricultural production.
According to some Soviet sources, there is a possibility of famine in parts of the USSR next year. Bearing in mind the instability and misery that that will bring and following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's present visit to the USSR, would it be possible for us to have a debate on


how this country could best assist the USSR to move to a freer market, and therefore to a better system for agriculture and transport?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was struck by the fact that, even on that crucial matter, there was a moment of statistical insecurity between my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I do not know how far I can take a discussion in this House on fundamental repairs to the Soviet economy. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have some interesting things to say about that on her return next week.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that, earlier this week, 15 local government officers from Poland came to this country to study local democracy? Given that fact, will he make time for an urgent debate on poll tax capping, when he can explain to the country and to the 15 Polish local government officers how local democracy exists under capping? Why when the people of Calderdale and in the other 19 authorities voted overwhelmingly Labour and for a Labour Government, did the Government decide that they knew better than the ballot box? Would not our Polish friends be confused and say, "We have just got rid of a regime like that. Why are we here learning about one that is doing exactly the same?"?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is an element of fantasy in the hon. Lady's anxiety to ensure proper information for our Polish visitors about the working of a democratic society under the rule of law. The steps in relation to charge capping are being taken in accordance with legislation passed by this House and following the votes taken in this House, and are now being considered by the courts in accordance with the rule of law. That is an impressive performance to commend to our Polish friends.

Mr. Michael Brown: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm a statement that I think he made at Prime Minister's Question Time? Did he say that there would be a statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the outcome of the EC Council of Ministers earlier today?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said in Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend is attending a further meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers this afternoon to consider the legal and experts' representations on the conclusions already reached. He hopes to be able to make a statement to the House this evening at the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Safety Bill. That representation has been made to you, Mr. Speaker, and it is, of course, subject to the consent of the House. My impression is that the whole House would like to hear an early statement from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House review his decision about the need for a statement about the dangerous game being played by British Airways, in connivance with the Civil Aviation Authority, which has allowed certificates and approvals to be given on unsafe aircraft, including Concorde and scores of others, during the past fortnight? Those aircraft have supposedly been maintained and repaired by a handful of management, when 7,000 engineers are on strike. Nobody

would believe that that handful of people could manage, maintain and repair those aircraft. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have here a computer printout of the number of aircraft that have been flying during the past fortnight, but which are unsafe? He has a duty to the House to make a statement on the matter and to get the dispute resolved.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will of course bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the point that was made so vehemently by the hon. Gentleman. If the matter is one tenth as serious as his rhetoric implies, I hope that he will urge upon those who are currently taking industrial action the necessity to get back to work as soon as possible.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the popularity of "spot the ball" competitions. May I suggest to him a parliamentary version in Hansard, called "spot the promise"? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said on 13 February that there were only two definite Labour promises, yet even in yesterday's Hansard we find promises from the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the first two priorities of the next Labour Government. May I therefore suggest that it must be a very popular competition, and the prizes, which would be very generous, should be supplied by the Labour spokesman making the promise and would he commensurate with the cost to the taxpayer?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was waiting for the last part of my hon. Friend's question. Of course I am in favour of a competition that is designed to draw attention to the matters that he has in mind. He also had the good sense to indicate how such a competition could be financed.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday, under the Standing Order No. 20 procedure, I attempted to get the House to debate the Government's disgraceful and complacent attitude to football ground safety and the fact that, in particular, the Football Licensing Authority, which should have been set up by 1 June under an Act of Parliament, has not been set up? There is no chairman and there are no members. As that vehicle is to implement Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, and local authorities and football clubs throughout the land are awaiting the tablets of stone from that body, will the Leader of the House agree to arrange a debate on that important subject in the near future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to arrange a debate on that topic at this time. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that the House will join me in expressing satisfaction at the vigorous way in which law enforcement authorities in Italy are already upholding the law in advance of the football competition there, expressing the hope that British football fans will behave with dignity and in a fashion that upholds the honour of this country, and also expressing the hope that our teams are as successful as they deserve to be.

Mr. Edward Heath: Would not it save a great waste of time and the tedium of listening to a tiresome speech yet again from my hon. Friend the


Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) if my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House were to arrange for a junior economist to take him quietly aside this weekend and explain to him the simplicities of the relationship between European currencies, which are so well understood by the other 11 members of the Community?
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House on the attitude that he has taken towards the vote in the House of Lords about the War Crimes Bill. In that he is absolutely right. He has spoken about the need to maintain the rule of law. That is what the House of Lords has set out to do. It has not been influenced by the lobby being run from California on this matter.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is not a business question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must have an opportunity to put his point. [Interruption.]

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Father of the House to calm himself? We do not want to lose him.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) may have misheard the comment from over his shoulder. I do not think that it was made by the Father of the House.

Mr. Heath: As this matter has been brought up about 42 years after the agreement was reached between the leaders of all parties in this country and by those who had fought through the war and by those who had lived through that process——

Sir Bernard Braine: You are not the only one.

Mr. Heath: No, but I stand by agreements reached by political leaders. As that was done, there is no haste whatever——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady interrupts the former Prime Minister that will delay our proceedings. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is what the House is about.

Mr. Heath: I have sat now through 20 years of screaming in my ear from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman)—[Interruption.]

Dame E. Kellett-Bowman: Your argument was defeated. We now want the Bill.

Mr. Heath: It is too much. I shall now stand through her screaming on her feet.
The Leader of the House is quite right. There is no constitutional crisis and there is no need whatsoever for further debate in this House.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend has contributed to an already interesting business questions by making them even more so and by concluding his observations by urging me—I commend this as a model to be followed by others—not to have a debate. That is a point of agreement. My other right hon. Friend, the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), has equally vigorously urged me to have a debate. Their contributions underline the importance of the issue and the need for us all to reflect on it carefully.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Leader of the House regard the long title of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill as having sufficient scope to enable hon. Members to explore the legal processes whereby planning decisions are reached in Scotland, given that the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently ruled that there should be tests for drilling at Dounreay by Nirex, and given that that is an attitude which——

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Lady finished?

Mrs. Ewing: Given that that decision——

Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has steam coming out of his ears.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Ewing: Given that that decision clearly overruled the democratically expressed views of the people of the highlands and islands—and, indeed, the people throughout the length and breadth of Scotland—if it is not possible for us to consider that matter in the context of our deliberations on that Bill, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on that issue, because the people of Scotland are furious about the decision that has been taken?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am obviously not in a position to give any kind of ruling—I should be unwise to try—on the scope of the long title of the Bill to which the hon. Lady has referred. As I understand it, the reasons for the decision arrived at by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were fully set out in his letter of 14 May, when he made it plain that he had considered the matter on its merits—as he was obliged to do. However, I shall bring the hon. Lady's points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving time for a debate on the British and European beaches about which the Commission has notified our fellow member states in the Community that they will be prosecuted under the bathing water directive? It is important that British tourists who are travelling abroad this summer should know the location of those beaches, and it is important that we should be able to discuss what action will be taken by the water companies to clean up our own beaches in the United Kingdom.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) will have an Adjournment debate, which will deal to some extent with this topic, next Wednesday,


13 June. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is right to draw attention to the need for the uniform enforcement of obligations in respect of this matter throughout the Community and to the need for the availability of information about it throughout the Community. I shall bring his points to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House provide a statement early next week, instead of showing such a complacent attitude, about the industrial dispute between British Airways and the ground staff? Does he accept the right of British Airways' management to enter into this shabby conspiracy with the Civil Aviation Authority, whereby aircraft are nominally certificated although there is a huge list of faults on aircraft that are flying passengers today? Those faults include faulty fuel gauges. I have the list with me.
This is happening because British Airways management are attempting to impose a 12 hour day on the engineers without them having the right to proper negotiation. It is a shabby arrangement. The Leader of the House should do something about this attempt by the management of British Airways to impose a diktat on people who have a perfect right to engage in proper negotiations and consultation and who want to keep our planes in the air safely, but who are denied that object by the attitude of the British Airways management.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again, the hon. Gentleman's intervention is extremely interesting. He asks for proper negotiations and consideration. I have no doubt that the management are entirely ready to undertake proper negotiations and consultation. That would be greatly facilitated if he urged those now taking industrial action——

Mr. Cryer: I urge the management, who are responsible.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —to return to normal working. I say that with some enthusiasm, because he should know that 12-hour shifts are not uncommon in the industry. They are worked by British Airways engineers at Gatwick. That is the basis on which I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge those taking industrial action to desist from it and start negotiating.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is not it time that we had another debate on local government finance? In making his decision, will my right hon. and learned Friend contrast the performance of the Labour party—which yet again, after no less than four years, failed to come up with its alternative to the community charge last month—with the performance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who took only a few days to come up with a respectable policy? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that there might after all be a job for my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley as an adviser to the Labour party?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that he would wish to undertake such a hopeless task.

Mr. George Galloway: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1071 on the case of Jonathan Moyle.
[That this House expresses its deep concern at the strange death of British journalist Jonathan Moyle, Editor

of Defence Helicopter World, found in the cupboard of his Santiago hotel room, hanged by his own shirt from a bar 5 ft 4 inches from the ground although he was 5 ft 8 inches tall, with his shins bruised, traces of sedatives in his stomach and blood stains on his sheets; notes that he was investigating the Chilean arms industry; notes that he was in touch with the British defence attaché in Santiago; deplores the foul attempts to smear Mr. Moyle being made by British security `sources'; deplores the attitude displayed by Her Majesty's Embassy in Santiago towards Mr. Moyle's death and to his family, as publicly complained of by Mr. Moyle senior; demands that Her Majesty's Government fully' investigate the demise abroad of yet another British journalist; and calls for a full statement from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.]
It deals with the mysterious death of an English journalist abroad. I ask the Leader of the House to find time to debate this sinister story. The Chilean police now believe that Jonathan Moyle was murdered, although the British embassy tried hard at the beginning to say that he had committed suicide.
We have the mystery of the death of a young, talented journalist and former service man and of why British sources quoted at the weekend in The Sunday Times and The Guardian spread the story not only that the journalist committed suicide but that he was involved in some dark, seamy dealings at the point of his death. It is a strange arid mysterious story of the death of yet another British journalist overseas. The House could do with a debate on the matter, and I urge the Leader of the House to give it consideration.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. Clearly, it is an important matter. He will understand that it is for the Chilean authorities to determine the cause of death. A Chilean investigation is under way and is being pursued vigorously. We have no reason to doubt either the expertise or the integrity of the examining magistrate. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in regular contact with Mr. and Mrs. Moyle and Her Majesty's consul in Santiago is in close contact with the examining magistrate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the British embassy in Santiago stand ready to assist in every way. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's specific point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), can we have a debate fairly soon on charge capping, and will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that plenty of time is allowed for it?
In the case of Avon, the Audit Commission produced figures last year which show that while Avon employs about the right number of lecturers and teachers—slightly below the average—the back-up staff employed by the education department exceed the expected norm for a county council of Avon's size by over 1,000. Is not that a classic case of a Labour-controlled authority spending vast quantities of money on back-up staff and not on front-line services?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has raised a very good example of an important point. One of the principal objectives of the reform of the education system introduced by the Government is to induce the use at the


point closest to the classroom of the largest proportion of educational resources that can be there deployed. One of the effects that we want to see is a diminution of administrative staff at headquarters and an enhancement of the quality of management and performance at the chalk face.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the procedures used for the appointment of chairmen to health authorities and the proposed self-governing hospital trusts? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that such a debate would provide an opportunity to warn the Secretary of State for Health that, if he were to appoint Councillor Eric Pickles, the failed captain of the Tory flagship in Bradford, to either post in Bradford, it would be regarded as a provocative insult to those working in the health services? It would also be most offensive to the public of Bradford who rely upon the public health service and who watched Councillor Pickles do his damnedest in the past two years to destroy local community services.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is room for exactly two views on that question. he is entitled to express his, but the fact that he has made his comments may underline for other people the benefit of doing exactly the opposite of what he has suggested.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted the amendment tabled yesterday by 68 hon. Members to early-day motion 1063?
[Line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add notes the concern of the people of the Isle of Sheppey over the provision of local hospital facilities, so thoroughly expressed by the honourable Member for Faversham in the adjournment debate he instigated on 20th April; recognised the belated interest of the Labour Party in this issue, as evidenced by their Parliamentary Lobby of 5th June; notes the deliberate selection of a date when they knew that the honourable Member for Faversham would be abroad on Parliamentary business; finds it curious that the Lobby met the unrelated honourable Members for Wakefield, Halifax, Workington and Cardiff South and Penarth, rather than those representing Kent constituencies; deplores the exploitation of a genuine local concern for party political purposes; and supports the honourable Member for Faversham in his long-standing campaign for improved hospital facilities for the people of Sheppey.]
Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the amendment reflects the widespread disgust of hon. Members at attempts to undermine a Member in his own constituency, particularly when it was known that that Member would be abroad on parliamentary business? Can my right hon. and learned Friend take steps through the usual channels to see that political rivalry does not descend into the gutter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The time I have had available in which to study the important text referred to by my hon. Friend is less than I would normally wish for. I shall certainly study the matter with care and reflect on what he said.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Apart from the hooliganism we have just seen on the Tory Benches, the Leader of the House will be aware that there was a great

deal of interest and controversy about potential hooliganism in Sardinia. Football is trying to eradicate this, but it cannot get a move on because the Home Office will not set up the Football Licensing Authority. Is he aware that it should have been set up earlier this year, but was postponed until 1 June? It is still not in being, but local police forces, clubs and councils want to spend cash and liaise. They are ready to prevent hooliganism next season, but they cannot do so because of the Government's incompetence. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least arrange for a statement to be made by the Home Secretary next week so that he can tell us what is happening?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's judgment. I hope that he shares the general contentment expressed in the House that the international machinery for the notification of offenders is in good working order, as seen by events in the past 48 hours. I shall bring his other points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, but at least let us join in taking some comfort from what has already happened.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 1077 on freedom of speech in Turkey?
[That this House condemns the actions of the Government of Turkey in issuing decree 413 on 10th April which abolishes press freedom and introduces wide-scale censorship; notes that since its introduction reporting of Kurdish issues has been prevented, newspapers closed down and many journalists imprisoned; and demands that the British Government make representations to the Turkish Government demanding that a free press be allowed in Turkey.]
Will he, when he has read it, make arrangements for a debate in this House on the treatment of Kurdish people in Turkey and Iraq and, more importantly, the British Government's continued support of the Turkish Government, despite their oppression of Kurdish people, and their continued trading policies with Iraq, despite its use of chemical and biological weapons against the Kurdish people? Does he believe that those slurs on civilisation should be treated far more seriously than they have so far by the British Government and that the House should be given the opportunity to discuss them?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I am not prepared to agree with the hon. Gentleman in all his remarks, we certainly understand the concern expressed in the motion at the restriction of press freedom in Turkey. We look to the Turkish Government to restore full press freedom as soon as possible.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for an improvement in postal services, particularly in London where we still have no Sunday collections although they operate in the rest of the country? We want such collections.
A debate on postal services would also give me the opportunity to bring before the House the need for better postal services in parts of west Ealing and Hanwell in my constituency. I could also draw attention to the aggravation and annoyance felt by elderly people in Northolt at Grange court——

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should write to the local postmaster.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman does not care about elderly people, but I do. The post box used by those elderly people has been arbitrarily removed and that is forcing them to walk a mile or two across busy roads to the nearest post box. We should have a debate on postal services so that the House can consider those matters.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my hon. Friend in recognising the importance of the point he makes. He says that the House should consider those matters. No hon. Member is more adept than he at bringing such matters to the attention of the House.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1066, which stands in my name and that of several other hon. Members, which congratulates the Isle of Skye Camanachd Association on its first ever victory in the Camanachd Cup at the shinty final last weekend in Fort William? [That this House warmly congratulates the Skye Camanachd Association over its victory in the. final of the Camanachd Cup; notes that this is the first occasion in the history of the competition that the trophy has gone back to the Isle of Skye; hopes that this well-publicised and popular result will lead to a continuing increase in both interest and participation in the game of shinty; and expresses appreciation to Glenmorangie whisky for their valued sponsorship of the sport.]
Would the deputy Prime Minister care to add his congratulations to the team?
But more important, will he tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer—given that the interest and participation in shinty is on the increase—that a popular move by the Government, and one which would encourage the game, would be to remove the imposition of VAT on the sale of shinty sticks?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Hear, hear.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am only sorry that the sport is not as familiar to my countrymen in Wales as it obviously is to the occupants of the outer isles. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating Skye on its historic victory, but I do not think that those congratulations necessarily lead us to the conclusion that the entire structure of the VAT system should be transformed.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early statement to be made on the situation in Cambodia in the light of alarming reports coming from Oxfam and others of an offensive by

Khmer Rouge forces, who are getting close to Phnom Penh, with the horrific possibility that the vulnerable people of that area will again be overrun by the tyranny of Pol Pot?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House never misses an opportunity of expressing its revulsion for the tyranny of Pol Pot and his cronies, as the saying goes. I re-echo that sentiment and will draw the point that my hon. Friend makes to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Allen McKay: It appears that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted, at any rate to a degree, the destructive element of poll tax and poll tax capping on the education and social welfare systems of local authorities. Will he make sure that the poll tax orders are debated by the House individually and separately?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall have to consider the best way of bringing those matters before the House when the time is right.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Could we at last have a debate on the state of the franchise? It is clear that the Government are involved in manipulating electoral registration. There is a problem, in that a Home Office circular issued on 1 May shows that it is possible to overcome the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1989, which established the extension of the franchise to many people overseas.
The imposition of the poll tax has resulted in 600,000 people not being on the electoral register who could be expected to be on it. The House should debate this serious matter and examine the evidence; it shows that a problem will arise at the next general election, which will not be based on the type of franchise to which we in this country have been used in the past.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter for the second time in as many weeks.

Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is nothing wrong with it, but it shows that the hon. Gentleman has already found an opportunity to raise the matter. If it is as serious as he suggests, no doubt his right hon. Friends will arrange for it to be raised on an Opposition day. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the arrangements made for the extension of the overseas franchise, about which he seems to be concerned, were supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparbrook (Mr. Hattersley) arid the other main political parties.

Points of Order

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House announced that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would make a statement on his return from the important discussions in Brussels on the future of the British beef industry.
Surely it would be for the convenience of the whole House if that statement were made as soon as possible. I believe that discussions through the usual channels would show that we would agree to the statement being made as soon as the Minister is available, rather than waiting until some time after 10 o'clock tonight. We shall have to intervene in the business on the Food Safety Bill in any event because that business will not conclude at 10 o'clock. We should have a statement as soon as possible because the matter is of considerable importance to beef producers and, of course, to consumers of beef in this country and abroad.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has already been considered as far as it can be in the short time available. I understand that it would be out of accordance with the normal procedures of the House for proceedings on a Bill that is before the House to be interrupted by a statement of that kind. It was for that reason that I indicated that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would make a statement at the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Safety Bill. Of course, I am perfectly ready to look at any arrangements that can sensibly and effectively be made to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) but, as I understand it, that is not possible. I cannot take the matter any further at this stage.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said that we will have to intervene in the business at some time unless the statement is to come at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. We do not know when the business on the Food Safety Bill will finish; there is no guarantee that it will conclude at 10 o'clock. As there will be at least one Division at about 7 pm, that is likely to provide a natural break in the proceedings and it seems perfectly proper, possible and reasonable for us to have the statement then rather than in the early hours of the morning or during an intervention in the business at some artificial time. I cannot see what is wrong with my suggestion.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think it unlikely that my right hon. Friend will be back by 7 o'clock. I thought that I was meeting the convenience of the House by indicating that he would be looking for an early opportunity to make his statement. The time that I have suggested has been established as the most convenient, consistent with the normal practice of the House. Obviously I shall look at the matter again, because I do not want to give the impression that there is no alternative. I understand that the right time, subject to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is at the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Safety Bill.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I should like to raise a point of order, details of which I gave you, Mr. Speaker, before today's proceedings. It relates to the protocol and

convention of the House about hon. Members taking up constituency issues in the constituencies of other hon. Members. There is an increasing tendency for Opposition Members to raise matters in the county of Kent in constituencies in which they have no standing or locus.
Question 53 on page 7561 of today's Order Paper was put down by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). In that question, the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise a constituency interest in the constituency of Dartford which I represent. He gave me no notice of this. He did not ask my permission, nor did he inform me of his intention, and that is important bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Dartford is raising the incident and issue with which the question is concerned with his usual robustness and vigour.
What protection can be afforded to hon. Members when hon. Members from other parties are not prepared to obey and conform to the usual protocol and conventions of the House? If the conventions are not obeyed, a tit-for-tat process is bound to emerge, to the detriment of all hon. Members, and we will descend into a form of parliamentary if not local anarchy, which would be much to the confusion of the people that we represent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the convention, which I think the whole House appreciates, about going into the constituency of another hon. Member without letting him know. I do not think that there is anything which says that there is an absolute bar on putting down questions that might cover what is happening in another Member's constituency. It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman has been prosecuting this matter with vigour in his constituency. I suggest that he takes it up with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and draws it to his attention.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Well, we have a heavy day ahead of us.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you are in a position to help the House in relation to what the Leader of the House has said—that, in his opinion, it is not procedurally possible to intervene in the course of debate on the Food Safety Bill in order to have a statement. If that is the case, then that ends the matter.
You, Mr. Speaker, could help by indicating whether that is acceptable. Most hon. Members will recollect that on Fridays it is quite normal for the proceedings to be interrupted at 11 o'clock for private notice questions or statements, whether the House is engaged on private Members' business or on a Bill. In order to further discussions that have taken place through the usual channels, may we have your guidance on what is possible?

Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to give my guidance. Statements are normally made at 3.30 pm or at 11 am on Friday. It would be exceptional to interrupt the business in the middle of a debate to make a statement unless the matter was of such urgency that it could not wait. That has rarely happened. I appreciate that it may be for the convenience of the House if the statement is made at a natural interruption of business this evening, and I judge from what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said to the Leader of the House that discussions about this are going on through the usual channels. Such a request has not yet been made to me, and


I imagine that it will be, when the discussions end. However, it would be exceptional to interrupt the business of the House at 7 o'clock just because it suited the people concerned. We must stick to our rules.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This concerns the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), which shocked many hon. Members, bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave no notification of his interest in a constituency matter of my hon. Friend. Will you guide us further? In your initial response, you spoke with great emphasis, but there appears to be a vague feeling that hon. Members notify other hon. Members of a visit to a constituency only if they are in the same party. That seems rather extraordinary. Will you confirm that the conventional courtesy is that hon. Members notify parliamentary colleagues, irrespective of party, of a prospective visit to a constituency?
I had an example in my constituency last year, when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) went to my constituency without notifying me of his visit, and said that he intended to do the same on many other occasions.

Mr. Speaker: It has long been the convention of the House that hon. Members visiting other Members'constituencies should notify them of such visits. I hope that the House will keep to the conventions because they have arisen so as to ensure good order, and good relationships between Members of Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner, as he has been mentioned.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We all know what those thin-skinned people on the Tory Benches do not know, which is that Ministers go to our constituencies. One went to mine recently, and never told me about it. He made a diversion from north-east Derbyshire, called in to Bolsover, and did not even tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). We did not get het up about it, and we did not come to complain to you, Mr. Speaker, because we do not think that it is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who represents Windscale, or Sellafield, finds that his constituency is mentioned regularly by hon. Members on both sides of the House. People visit it. According to the adverts, Members of Parliament from all over the place go there every week. It is a free country. Some of us travel around to spread a message that is contrary to that spread by the Tory party.
Several of my hon. Friends raised a point about the appalling practices of British Airways at Heathrow. Are we expected not to mention it? Are we supposed to tell those on strike, "Sorry, we cannot find the Member of Parliament who represents the area"? I went to Wapping God knows how many times. Do you mean to tell me that I should have gone to see somebody every time, Mr. Speaker? It is a joke.

Mr. Speaker: It may be a joke, but it is also a convention. There is a distinction between visiting a constituency on a general matter and visiting it in connection with a matter of specific constituency interest. The good sense of the House can determine the difference.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your advice about another parliamentary convention. I believe that this is a matter directly for you.
This place works on the basis of parties, which enjoy certain privileges. Several times this week, Mr. Speaker, you have been questioned about the implications of the Social Democratic party dissolving and becoming a campaign for social democracy. Hitherto, two SDP Members of Parliament—the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) and for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright)—have enjoyed opportunities to speak frequently so as to express their party's view. Their leader, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), has frequently caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, at Prime Minister's Question Time and on other occasions. Will you reflect on that in the future, and can you advise us whether independent Members, representing an independent SDP and a campaign outside the House, will continue to enjoy the privileges that they have enjoyed in the past?

Mr. Speaker: When a party is dissolved, it is dissolved. Without going too deeply into how my discretion is exercised in the matter, let me say that I should have to look on those involved as individual Members. I am not quite certain that a campaign is a party——

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have not finished yet. On reflection, perhaps I have.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I interrupt you briefly? There is money involved. The SDP was an organised party, and was allocated Short money to finance its position in the House. With its dissolution, and its change to a campaign, surely that money should be refunded and any outstanding payments cancelled to ensure that the Short money does not go to a party that is not in existence.

Mr. Speaker: That will be a matter for the authorities of the House, and I understand that discussions are in progress.

BILL PRESENTED

PENSIONERS' TELEVISION LICENCES

Mr. Keith Vaz presented a Bill to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to exempt persons of pensionable age from paying the full fee for certain wireless telegraphy licences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Home-Grown Cereals Authority Oilseeds Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 7398/88 and 4218/90, relating to voting rights for Community nationals in local elections in their Member State of residence, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — Food Safety Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

PROHIBITION OF IRRADIATION

'.—(1) Nothing in section 17(1) shall be taken to confer any power on the Ministers to make regulations permitting, whether or not subject to conditions, the irradiation of food intended for sale or for human consumption; or the sale or preparation of such food.'.—[Dr. David Clark.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 7—

FOOD IRRADIATION COMMISSION

'.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Food Irradiation Commission ("the Commission") to perform the functions assigned to the Commission by or under this section.

(2) The members of the Commission, of whom there shall be not less than ten, shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate, and shall include at least one representative each from a consumers' organisation and from a food enforcement authority.

(3) The Commission shall give advice to the Minister on matters relating to the implementation of this section or the exercise of any power conferred by it, or otherwise relating to food irradiation, where the Commission consider it expedient, or they are requested by the Minister to do so.

(4) The Commission shall have a duty to examine all matters relating to food irradiation and shall draw up a plan to do so.

(5) The plan established under subsection (4) above shall include—

(a) measures to establish the effects of irradiation on pesticide residues and other toxins in food;
(b) measures to establish the effects of irradiation on vitamin content and nutritional value of food;
(c) measures to establish the effects of irradiation on food additives and food packaging material;
(d) measures to establish a diagnostic test to determine whether food has been subject to irradiation;

(6) No regulations under this Act authorising the irradiation of food shall be made before the results of the plan established under subsection (4) above have been published and such plan has been subject to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament.'.

Dr. Clark: We are discussing the Bill at a most appropriate time, when the entire country's attention is focused on food safety as a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—the mad cow scare—and the Minister's efforts in Brussels, to which we shall refer later this evening.
If we had not had the BSE scare, probably one of the most contentious issues relating to food safety would have been food irradiation. As Opposition Members have made clear, we welcomed the Government's intention and efforts in bringing forward the Bill. We did not vote against it on Second Reading, although we generally felt that it did not go far or fast enough; we had a useful and constructive


Committee stage, in which we made progress. However, the one issue that deeply divided the two sides of the House was food irradiation.
Food irradiation is a technology looking for a use. For the past 50 years, it has been hawked around the world as a panacea for food poisoning. The British Government have sacked thousands of scientists in food and agricultural research; have cut the number of vets employed by the state by 27 per cent.; have allowed the shortage of environmental health officers to amount to more than 420; have closed research stations; and have weakened regulations. That has resulted in an inevitable food poisoning epidemic. In their desperation, the Government have jumped on the irradiation bandwagon. They see it as the easiest route out of their self-created problem. It is their magic quick fix. However, their actions are wrong, for a number of reasons.
It is ironic that, as the rest of the world begins to turn its back on irradiation, our hard-pressed and desperate Government have seized on the technology as a drowning man clutches at a straw.
It is interesting that even in Europe, where tentative steps have been taken towards Europeanwide legislation that is the only sensible approach in the long term—there have been difficulties. The European Commission put forward limited proposals for irradiation—much more limited than those that the Government are proposing. The European Parliament rejected them. The Commission has now put forward even more limited proposals. It is rather strange that our Government, alone in Europe, appear to be rushing headlong into adopting legislation.
When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will tell us why the Government have announced their intention to proceed with legislation on food irradiation even before the draft directive has been agreed in Europe. It is nonsensical. Why jump the gun? Why do the Government want private investors to invest in very expensive irradiation plants when the European Community may make the process illegal? I draw the Minister's attention to the House of Lords Select Committee report published on 12 December 1989. There is a weakness in the Government's case that highlights their desperation to find a way out of their problems with food poisoning.
The Opposition have fundamental objections to irradiation and we oppose it for a number of reasons, many of which we have outlined previously in the House and in Committee. The first and possibly the greatest weakness in the case for irradiation is the fact that there is no test. It is illogical to allow a scientific process that even the Government and the European Community accept can be dangerous if too high levels of irradiation are used. If it cannot be told whether a product has been irradiated, the extent of the irradiation cannot be measured. That is a basic weakness which makes the whole process potentially dangerous.
Re-irradiation is even more dangerous. The kilograys are cumulative. If food is irradiated at 10 kilograys—the maximum permitted by the EEC—and then it is done again, that makes 20 kilograys, which is above the safety level. There is no way to test whether the food has been irradiated. That is the most basic weakness in the case for irradiation.
We are constantly told that irradiation is a well-known, well-established science, although I believe that much of the information relating to it is rather sketchy at times and

selective. Much of the science of irradiation was carried out many years ago and much of the new information coming on stream casts doubt on the process. For example, we do not know sufficient about the effects of food irradiation on pesticides, food additives or food packaging. There are more and more complicated chemical cocktails in our pesticides. We hope that they are more effective and, indeed, more environmentally friendly. Certainly, we should be trying to achieve that. However, many of the pesticides leave persistent residues on the skin of the food. We do not know the effect of irradiation on the chemical cocktails that make up those pesticides. We may know the effect of irradiation in isolation, but not in a mixture.
4.45 pm
That view is held by the Department's scientists. 'We often hear Ministers saying that they always take the advice of their scientists. We know that that is not the case—they are most selective and take advice only when it suits them and saves them money. The Department's research consultative committee's residues sub-group expressed concern about
the irradiation of commodities which contained pesticide residues and associated inert substances and the possibility of these residues being transformed into more toxic radiolytic products.
I hope that the Minister will think again about that aspect of irradiation and, for once, listen to his scientists. If he has better scientific advice than that, perhaps he can tell us what it is.
Another basic objection to irradiation involves the argument that it can be used to clean up contaminated food. Conservative Members who are in favour of the technology say that that is impossible. Not only can we challenge that argument but we can give chapter and verse of food that was presented as good food when previously it had been condemned as unfit. I do not want to bore the House, but it is important to put it on the record because we are having some difficulty in persuading Conservative Members that it happened. Bad food can be dressed up as good food.
I shall cite an example that has been proven in the courts of law in this country. In 1986 Young's found that prawns that it had imported did not match its public health standards. It sent the prawns to Gammaster's in Holland for a quick fix—they were irradiated—and they were then re-imported. They passed the bacteriological tests and were sold for human consumption. That is a proven case.
There are many other examples that have not yet been proved. Indeed, I informed the Minister's predecessor of a number of specific cases. I accept that it is difficult to get the cases to stand up in a court of law. However, it is a widespread technique that is known in the trade as "Dutching". If that sort of abuse happens when irradiation is illegal, I find it hard to believe that it would not continue if irradiation were legal. Irradiation will become the charter for the food cowboys. It is for that reason that most of the reputable food processors and food retailers in Britain will not touch irradiation with a bargepole. They reject it because not only do they believe that their food is safe, but they know that their consumers will reject it.
The other argument is that if we accept irradiation there will be no incentive for the food processors to follow the good and proper hygiene practices that are so necessary


and that we intend to espouse if the Bill is enacted—for example, training, handling, and ensuring that the whole food chain is subject to good hygiene practices. Irradiation will lull people into a sense of false security. There is no alternative to properly organised and structured hygiene standards.
To make matters even worse, none of the recent incidents of food poisoning could have been prevented by irradiation. I use the word "incidents" as opposed to "scares" because "scares" implies that nothing happened. In these incidents people have tragically died. That is not media hype; it is fact. Therefore, let us consider some of the incidents and see whether irradiation could have tackled the problem.
The first great incident happened just 18 months ago when the then Under-Secretary of State for Health made her famous—or infamous—statement about eggs. That was the salmonella incident when we had the whole debate about chickens. The truth is that irradiation would not have helped one iota. Eggs cannot be irradiated. The Government took the right approach by tackling the disease at source and in that they had the Opposition's support. We are pleased that they took that approach. Equally, it is difficult to irradiate chickens. The European Commission has dropped the concept of irradiating chickens. Sliced chickens can be irradiated, but not whole chickens without exceeding the safety levels of kilograys.
Of late, we have also heard a great deal about cheeses. About 15 months ago the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food threatened to ban soft cheeses from France because they carried listeria. The French Minister of Agriculture put pressure on him and our Minister caved in to that French pressure. History has repeated itself today.
What did we hear on Friday? Did the Minister intend to retaliate and ban French cheeses? No. He told the Tory Euro Members of Parliament, "We are not quite sure." But the newspapers had the story that we would take action against potentially dangerous French cheeses. The argument was—there is a certain logic in it—that many French cheeses are made from unpasteurised milk and there is some evidence that they could carry listeria. The matter is so serious that the American Government will not allow any soft French cheeses to enter America unless they are certified to be made from pasteurised milk. According to the American Government scientist, there is a safety risk, but irradiation would not help that one iota because cheese cannot be irradiated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) was very involved in the environmental health officers' discovery of contaminated pate from Belgium on sale in a supermarket in his constituency. But pate cannot be irradiated, so that would not have helped.
I could go on. We know that irradiation can kill bacteria, but it does not remove the toxins that are left behind in the food and in some cases it may not kill the spores that they form. There is an argument that killing the bacteria and leaving a sterile environment creates the conditions for new bacteria to breed in greater confusion. That argument applies if food has too long a shelf life.
There was the case of botulism in hazelnut yogurt. But that was due to toxins, not in the yogurt but in the purée, so irradiation could not have been used in that case where, tragically, two people died.
In the last 10 days my constituency has been affected by the shellfish issue. As the Minister knows, there has been

a little controversy about that. When it was drawn to the Department of Health's attention that mussels off my constituency, which usually have a safety level of 400, were found to have a level of 20,000, it rightly issued warnings about their safety and urged people not to sell them. However, the Ministry did not excel itself, because it took seven days to publish the result of tests on other shellfish, crabs, lobsters and prawns, during which time the livelihood of many fishermen was put at risk.
But the point is that if any of those shellfish had been irradiated, even if they had been just above the safety level, they would not have been made safe because the contamination is the result not of bacteria but of toxins, and irradiation cannot kill toxins. The significance of that is that it is often argued that the real benefit of irradiation would be in the shellfish industry. Yes, it would kill the bacteria, but it would not kill the toxins which, by and large, are the fatal element in shellfish poisoning. That is why a major shellfish retailer, Mr. Ken Bell, in Newcastle has launched, at considerable expense, a long campaign against irradiation. When I asked why, he said that his shellfish were clean and good and that he could guarantee them. He did not believe that he needed to irradiate them in order to sell them. He believes that irradiation would diffuse the shellfish market because some cowboys would bring in shellfish which appeared to be clean but which were not, as happened in the 1986 Young's case—a proven case which no one can challenge.
Let me make one obvious point which must be made because some people are under an illusion. Irradiation would do nothing to kill the BSE agent causing mad cow disease.
As we press ahead with the move towards irradiation, other countries are turning their backs on it. Australia, which used to have irradiation, now has a three-year moratorium on it. Numerous states in the United States of America are now banning irradiation. It is often alleged that irradiation is widespread in the United States of America, but in most states it is illegal and most people do not realise that it is licensed for only two ranges of products—spices and tropical fruit. Irradiation is not used for any other products in the United States. Recently, Sweden has also announced a ban on the process. Tragically, as the rest of the world moves in one direction, the British Government move in the opposite direction—the wrong direction. The Government have taken that action because it is more palatable than the situation in which they now find themselves.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I have listened patiently, as have other right hon. and hon. Members, to the hon. Gentleman, who has been quick to make assertions but—surprisingly, in view of the length of notice of this debate—whose speech has been sadly lacking in detail. If he agrees that 50 to 60 per cent. of all food poisoning cases reported involve poultry, can he counter the comment made by no less a distinguished person than Professor Bevan Moseley, head of Reading food research institute, that the number of food poisoning cases in the United Kingdom could fall to 60 per cent. of the present number if irradiation is introduced? On the findings of which scientists do the Opposition base their arguments?

5 pm

Dr. Clark: Obviously the hon. Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not given precise details because on Second Reading, in previous debates in the House, and in the Standing Committee on the Bill on 27 March, I quoted a number of scientists. I did not wish to labour that particular point again today. I have my doubts about the information that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) gave. It is generally alleged that most food poisoning incidents of late were related to eggs. I also repeat that even the European Commission now says that whole chickens cannot be irradiated because the bone interferes with the process. One can irradiate sliced chicken, but that is only a partial answer. The real answer is a proper hygiene code.
The Government are obsessed with irradiation because they cannot face up to the alternative of a complete U-turn. They will have to increase the number of state vets, whose numbers have been cut by 27 per cent. since the Government came to office in 1979. The Government will have to do something about training and finance for the environmental health service, which is currently 420 officers under strength. They will also have to do something about trading standards officers, who are currently 300 under strength. The Government will have to do something about bringing together new groups and teams of research scientists, so that problems can be tackled at the root, and about introducing tough new regulations to protect public health. The Government are not prepared to make a U-turn because that will cost them money—even though they know that they are putting the health of the public at risk by neglecting to make that U-turn. They turn instead to irradiation.
Irradiation is the only option that the Government will entertain. They view it as a cheap option, but it is one which nobody wants. Many reputable organisations oppose irradiation. The list goes on and on. They include the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the British Medical Association, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Consumer Association, most food retailers, and even the National Farmers Union.
I conclude with the most telling point of all, made by the technical executive of Marks and Spencer, Dr. Tom Clayton, who encapsulated the argument against irradiation best when he said:
If food is already safe, as we believe it is, in our shops, there is no need for this extra process of irradiation.
And he is absolutely right.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Throughout the progress of the Food Safety Bill, irradiation is the topic that has most taken up the time of right hon. and hon. Members in expressing their concern, yet the Government have consistently shrugged off those concerns and clung to their own starting point—the argument that irradiation is not only safe but to be welcomed.
By doing so, the Government are flying in the face of the British Medical Association, public opinion, and evidence of the practice in other countries. It is hard to understand why they are taking such a hard line when there is no need to hurry. They are pushing through the introduction of a process that has not been fully researched, for which scientific evidence is not complete, and for which no diagnostic test has been developed for ascertaining whether the process is being abused by those with access to it.
Throughout our debates, I and other hon. Members have tabled amendments to meet the Government half way. We tried to place restrictions on the use of irradiation and to ensure that it is not introduced short of the introduction of techniques that will reassure the public that it is safe. The Government have resisted them all throughout. I tabled an amendment requiring novel food processes to be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. Another sought to list specific areas of concern that needed to be identified before irradiation is allowed and in which there remains some doubt. I refer to the lack of a diagnostic test, the effect of irradiation on pesticide residues and other toxins, food additives and food packaging materials, and vitamins. Another amendment would have delayed the introduction of regulations until the European Community had agreed a common position.
I support Labour's new clause I, and I have tabled one of my own that is intended to achieve the same effect, although in a different form. No doubt the Minister will argue that the new clauses would serve no useful purpose and that plenty of evidence is already available. We have already heard from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that many questions hang over existing evidence and over other matters that the Government prefer to brush aside. The Minister must accept that other countries and many scientific bodies believe that the available evidence is still open to doubt or is against him, and that there is no pressing, urgent case for the early introduction of irradiation. The Minister may feel that the balance of opinion is the other way and that there are advantages in pressing ahead, but he cannot deny that there is a case to be made against doing so. Why should not the proposed new clauses be acceptable?
Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have quoted the evidence of the World Health Organisation in supporting their determination to force through legislation on food irradiation, while conveniently ignoring experts who urge caution. I draw the Minister's attention to what the European Parliament had to say on the matter, and to the publisher's note on the book "Food Irradiation Now", which appeared at the request of the WHO. It said:
But WHO expressly stated that the Committee of Experts had not considered the general safety aspects of the food irradiation process nor had it claimed that food irradiation was safe or that it had no harmful effects on human health or could be applied without any health risks. After a general survey, however, the Committee of Experts have come to certain conclusions on the toxicological, microbiological and physiological acceptability of food irradiated with a total dose of up to 10 kGy.
That is not wholehearted endorsement. The WHO is drawing attention to the fact that it was anything but a wholehearted endorsement—that the committee was satisfied only in respect of certain criteria relating to some aspects of irradiation that it had been asked to examine. That is not sufficiently reassuring to embark on the kind of changes now envisaged.
The European Parliament has expressed many concerns regarding irradiation. It said that, despite decades of research, it was not possible to prove that food irradiation caused no harm to health. It pointed out that practically all scientific studies admit a considerable degree of uncertainty as regards effects on human health, and that, it is not possible to prove that food has been irradiated, because there is no technical means of checking. It pointed out that, as a method of conservation, irradiation is no


better or cheaper than other methods. Technological improvements to certain foods are of interest to manufacturers but not to consumers.
The Parliament also pointed out that the use of the technology involved is potentially more dangerous than other types of conservation, at least to employees exposed to risk in the plants, especially in the Third world. Incidentally, irradiation encourages the spread of nuclear technology outside the states that currently make use of it. It pointed out that irradiation can be used to deceive consumers about the freshness or ripeness of food. The microbicidal effect of irradiation varies considerably, and may lead to an increase in germs. It pointed out that the desired objectives of food irradiation can be achieved by other methods, and that it does not provide greater protection for consumers against spoiled food.
If that list of objections is not enough, I shall add another, which should be on the Minister's plate: recently the European Parliament voted by 263 votes to 66 against irradiation. As an EC country, Britain is not allowed to introduce legislation on a subject on which there is a directive pending or when the EC has said that it will legislate, so the Government would be breaking the spirit of that rule by pushing through legislation now.
I cannot understand how, in the face of the bulk of that evidence and of evidence from the British Medical Association, from environmental health officers, trading standards officers and the National Farmers Union, the Minister can still say that he believes that irradiation is proven to be absolutely safe. Until it is, the House should not pass legislation to allow irradiation to go ahead. The old adage, "If in doubt, don't", should apply.
I am glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed those doubts and I hope that they will do so again tonight, if the Minister pushes the new clauses to a vote and does not accept the case that is being made. I hope that hon. Members will show that what they have said outside this place applies when it comes to a vote inside the House.
I hope that the Minister, at the last minute, will recognise that none of that is necessary. He simply has to swallow his pride and do something to respect and respond to the concerns of consumers, most of the scientific bodies and many people in the industry.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I support new clause 1 and the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democratic party, which goes into somewhat more detail. Both are a step in the right direction.
Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I am amazed at the obsessive determination of the Government, who have an almost evangelical zeal for irradiation. We have heard it from the Secretary of State and from the Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friend said that perhaps it is a panacea for the Government; because we do not have enough environmental health officers or Ministry vets, they may see irradiation as the answer. However, it seems to go beyond that because they argue the case for irradiation with passionate concern.
In a press release the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on 1 March at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's food science laboratory in Norwich, used these words:

A torrent of pseudo-science … science fiction … myth from publicity conscious activists in the media and elsewhere who are anxious to foist a particular viewpoint on to the public".
That is dramatic language when talking about something like food irradiation.
Who are the people to whom the Parliamentary Secretary is referring? The Consumers Association—I know that the Government do not particularly like that association but it is vocal on behalf of consumers. Who else? The National Federation of Meat Traders, and who knows more about meat than that federation? It is opposed to irradiation. The British Medical Association is opposed to it, and what organisation knows more about the health of the nation than the BMA? The environmental health officers—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said—are opposed and they are the watchdogs whose duty it is to protect public health and to protect people from bad food. They are violently opposed to irradiation. Who else? The National Federation of Women's Institutes—that revolutionary body of pseudo-scientists—opposes irradiation. It is not only the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats; as the Minister knows, many people are seriously concerned that the Government are trying to foist food irradiation upon an unwilling public.
I hope that the Minister will think again about new clause 1 and that some Conservative Members will come into the Lobby and vote for the clause—I am sure that many of them will. This is hardly a party political matter. The Government have made it that, not the Opposition. I am certain that many Conservative Members feel let down by their Front Bench spokesmen because of the Government's evangelical zeal for irradiation.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields listed many of the faults of irradiation. We are worried because it is uncertain and not sufficiently tried, tested and proven. Perhaps at some future date experiments will be done to make it safe, but we do not know whether it is safe at the moment.
5.15 pm
My main worry is the lack of detection for irradiation. The Government must admit that food irradiation can mask bad food, although the food may look all right. At present the housewife or purchaser can look at the food and say, "That looks off to me and I am not going to buy it". However, irradiated food looks in pristine health and consumers buy it as a result. If bad money can drive out good, bad food can drive out good food if irradiation is allowed.
I know that the Minister will say that irradiated food must be labelled by the shopkeeper. However, I have not had an answer to the point I raised on Second Reading about cafés and restaurants. If irradiated food is cheaper, the proprietors will buy it and they will not have two separate lists saying that this food is irradiated while that food is not. They will not tell their customers. Therefore, the consumer in the café will not know what he is eating and whether it is irradiated.
There will be no test whereby public health inspectors can detect whether food is irradiated. Nobody can tell how many times food has been irradiated. No one can tell the dosage of radiation. Before one allows irradiated food, it is essential that we know all those things. There must be a detection test, or we will be wholly dependent on the honesty and good will of the retailer, trader or café
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) mentioned food poisoning and quoted an eminent scientist who said that the number of cases would be halved with irradiation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields answered that point. I did not know, and I do not think many hon. Members knew, that the only foods allowed to be irradiated in the United States of America are spices and tropical fruits. Can the Minister tell us how many cases of food poisoning and how many deaths have arisen because people have eaten spices or tropical fruit? They are not the causes of the trouble—it is such food as chicken, eggs and cheese, which cannot be irradiated. That is where the mischief is—not in spices and tropical fruit. If necessary, spices could have irradiation treatment. I understand that at the end of 1990 the present methods of making spices safe, using ethlyene oxide, will cease. Irradiation may be the answer, but it is not the only answer. I understand that the recent discovery and adoption by market leaders of a new steam pasteurisation process eliminates the use of ethylene oxide.
Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to listen to public opinion outside and to responsible organisations. They are not wild men but responsible organisations such as the National Federation of Meat Traders, the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association and the National Federation of Women's Institutes. If the Government will not listen to Opposition Members, they should listen to those organisations, and if they will not listen to them, will they please look behind them and listen to the voices that no doubt will be raised in the debate bitterly opposed to the foisting of irradiation on consumers and food in Britain?

Mr. Gregory: This evening we are having an important debate on irradiation, but the speeches from Opposition Members have not been of the substance and quality that one might expect. We have heard a great deal of assertion and have seen a Luddite attitude which will come over clearly to those who follow our debates. However, if we introduce some common sense and scientific thought rather than allegation, we shall put the subject in its rightful context.
The first point on which I support my hon. Friend the Minister is that we are discussing an enabling piece of legislation. It is not forcing irradiation on anyone. Quite clearly, my hon. Friend is looking to those in the industry to introduce adequate tests. I share the concern of right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House about the inadequacy of tests at present and would not wish regulations to be put before the House until trading standards officers and environmental health officers, whom we rightly expect to implement the law passed in this country, should have the ability to check whether food has been irradiated. My hon. Friend has said in the House and in Committee that irradiated food will be labelled. The absence of such a label means that food has not been through that process.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred obliquely to his concern about restaurants. A restaurateur would be required to identify those items on the menu that had been irradiated. Irradiation has been shown to be extremely useful in dealing with bacteria, particularly salmonella and listeria. Bacteria is all around us and irradiation is useful in killing or greatly reducing micro-organisms in poultry meat and some shellfish.
I imagine that a number of right hon. and hon. Members are old enough to remember the argument used against the pasteurisation of milk—that it would lead to a relaxation in efforts to reduce cattle disease. But the 3 per cent. of milk that remained unpasteurised was responsible for some 90 per cent. of milk-borne disease. Personally, I would rather herbs and spices were irradiated than put through the present procedures, although industry is looking carefully at that, and I should also feel happier about poultry products that had been irradiated. However, the shopper and the customer in the restaurant will have the choice; we are not forcing irradiation upon them.
Toxicological, microbiological and nutritional effects of irradiation have been studied extensively, and references have been made to a number of United Kingdom scientific committees. The World Health Organisation, the Food and Drugs Administration, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes show that irradiation has been tried and tested for decades. So we are not talking about a development that has occurred in the past few years; one has to go back to the 1920s when the process was invented. I understand that the 1991 mission into space—the Anglo-Soviet Juno flight—will carry irradiated food because the scientists advising those astronauts consider it the safest form of food.
I share the concern of those who expressed reservations about vitamin loss through irradiation, but clearly the process is favourable, in that it extends storage time. Many of us may have purchased food which, even within its storage life, has not lasted long. Had it been irradiated, those difficulties would not have occurred. Quite clearly, irradiation cannot improve the appearance of food, disguise taste or mask unpleasant odours. In all those respects, food manufacturers, retailers and restaurateurs will be careful before utilising the process.
In conclusion, we are talking about enabling legislation and we should get some common sense into our debate. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will not put regulations before the House until adequate tests are in place. It is the right way forward to encourage industry to develop those tests and to ensure that trading standards officers and environmental health officers can enforce them. We should not adopt a Luddite attitude by putting our heads in the sand and saying that we shall throw out irradiation and join the extremely small group of countries that will not permit the procedure.

Mr. Alan Williams: I apologise to my namesake, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), for jumping in ahead of him. I also apologise to hon. Members who have participated in debates in Committee and throughout the proceedings on the Bill for intervening at such a late stage, but as a former consumer protection Minister, I cannot allow the Bill to complete its proceedings without intervening briefly to raise a couple of points.
I was most impressed by the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) who introduced the new clauses. Contrary to what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said, I thought that all three hon. Gentlemen spoke with great moderation. There is no doubt about the sincerity of the points they raised, and


they expressed them with great moderation and no attempt at scaremongering. The hon. Member for York and I have debated consumer affairs for many years, and we are often on the same side. I hope that he will not be offended when I say that the speech that he has just made does him the least justice of any I have heard him make.
The hon. Member accused my hon. Friends of being Luddite and then adopted their arguments. He said that it is Luddite not to permit irradiation, but that we should not introduce regulations until we can monitor them properly. I am sure that he was listening to my hon. Friends, but my understanding was that they were making exactly that point time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that monitoring was essential. If the hon. Member for York adopts the criterion that we should not introduce irradiation until it can be monitored, he should agree that that cannot be undertaken while there is a shortage of 400 environmental health officers and 300 trading standards officers. When those services have been working to full establishment, they are overstretched in the range of their responsibilities. Even on his own basic criterion, the hon. Member for York has been making the same case that we have been trying to make—it is impossible to monitor irradiation.
It is bad enough when something unimportant is impossible to monitor. There are many rules and regulations that we should like to see enforced, but we recognise that they are not of fundamental importance. But in this case we are dealing with health, even with life and death. When public health is genuinely at risk, the benefit of the doubt must always be given to the consumer and to the public. Again, my hon. Friends have been trying to make that point. The Minister has argued at various stages that it is a matter of choice and that people will have a choice because irradiated food will be labelled.
5.30 pm
Good firms will label food but, as my hon. Friends have said, such firms will probably not need to use irradiated food. However, there is no choice if people do not know whether food has been irradiated, and there can be no knowledge where there is no monitoring and no way of testing. How can one have monitoring, for which the hon. Member for York called, if one cannot test? If he and I were to go to a restaurant after the debate to discuss our differences amicably, we could eat a meal of irradiated food and yet be utterly unaware of what we were consuming.
That in itself should be sufficient to cause any serious Minister to step back and to say, "Have we got it wrong?" Other people are willing to admit that they are wrong, so I hope that even at this stage—the consequences of getting it wrong are so serious—the Minister will be willing to recognise that he, rather than hon. Members who have been criticising him, is the one who is out of step.
Other countries are turning back, or saying that they must go no further and should have a moratorium. Other hon. Members have pointed out the severe limitation on the extent of irradiation in the United States, the most open market in the world. That should lead the Minister to realise that there is sufficient doubt about the scientific validity of irradiation for him to say that we should put irradiation aside.
We must think of the dangers implicit in going ahead. We are on the verge of 1992, with its acceleration of uniform rules, regulations and standards. Anyone investing in those processes who saw a 4:1 vote against irradiation in the European Parliament, who saw the European Commission watering down its proposals at each successive stage as it got cold feet, and who realised that the proposal for irradiation would not get through would know that he had to make a rate of return quickly. It may happen that, despite the Minister, Europe will declare irradiation illegal after 1992 and, after all, there is already a draft directive. In a few years, decisions will be made by a majority vote, and Ministers will no longer have a veto. That will be an incitement to those who invest in the equipment and processes necessary for irradiation to ensure that they get a return as quickly as they can.
In the food industry, as in any other, there are many good people, but there are also some villains. Those villains could poison people and could cause enormous damage to public health. The food industry is competitive and the aim is to operate at minimum cost, especially at the quick food end, which has a consumer body of youngsters and children. The quick food industry caters for the most vulnerable and those who have the least experience on which to judge what is safe, yet it is the area most likely to be persuaded to use cheaper, irradiated products. There is danger to the public here, which the Minister appears to be utterly unwilling to address.
New clause 7 proposes a commission. I want to make a rather technical point which is relevant to the proposal. Whether such a commission makes sense depends on the Government machinery within which it operates. As a result of food poisoning and the various scares over the past couple of years, there has been talk of a Ministry of Food as opposed to a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is a misguided approach—and I go further. What is needed is a separate Ministry of Consumer Interests and Affairs.
I do not say that because I am a former Minister in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. The Ministry in which I served lasted for six years and then ceased to exist for a reason that would apply to a Ministry of Food. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members do not seem to want to listen. I was describing my experience of operating within a Department and trying to achieve some of the benefits that we all want for our constituents. The Department was too narrowly based to be viable in the long term and there was not sufficient work load to sustain it. It did not have responsibility for food, as I should have liked. The same would happen to a Ministry of Food.
I gladly support the commission to deal with irradiation, as proposed in new clause 7. New clause 6 also suggests a monitoring organisation. By the time such organisations had been established, there would be limited work for a Ministry to carry out. However, the paradox is that, if those organisations are to be effective, they need a Minister at Cabinet level able to argue the consumers' case on an equal footing with the sponsoring Ministers arguing the industry's case. Although I support as a step the proposal for the commission and for the monitoring organisation, I ask Opposition Members, when considering the framework of Government that they would like to see, and I ask Conservative Members, to consider the possibility that what is needed is not a narrowly based and


probably non-viable Ministry of Food, but a more widely based Ministry of Consumer Protection, with far wider interests.

Mr. David Ashby: To some extent, I agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about the idea of a watchdog and protector of consumer affairs who is concerned not only with food, but with consumer affairs in the widest sense. This country lacks a Ralph Nader. He was uncomfortable to many and caused many problems, but he did a good job in America. However, that is an argument for another place, for another time and, perhaps, on another Bill.
We have seen many scare tactics and misunderstandings about irradiation and about the purpose of the Bill. To understand irradiation and what it entails, we should consider the title of the Bill. Clause 7 creates an offence of rendering food "injurious to health" and refers to
Any person who renders any food injurious to health by means of any of the following operations".
They arc set out fully, and they include
abstracting any constituent from the food; and subjecting food to any other process or treatment.
That is apart from other substances. That matter is at the heart of the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) rightly said, food irradiation is an old process. It started in the 1920s—it has been around a long time. It is part of many processes to make food good and wholesome, and it must be considered as a process alongside all the other processes. No doubt, if we went back to the early days of food canning—we may have to go back to Mrs. Beeton's days—I am sure that people would say, "We shall get food poisoning. It will not last. People will be very ill." I have not looked at the relevant Hansard, but I am sure that such a thought must have prevailed. We also have vacuum-packaging processes and gas treatments such as flushing. Some fruits are kept in inert gases such as nitrogen to preserve them. There are many processes, and irradiation is just another process.
Why are we so worried? We are told that irradiation does not deal with toxins, for example. If we were to can food that contained toxins, it would not make it any better. Even after the treatments that I have discussed, toxins would still remain in bad food. Why single out irradiation because it does not deal with toxins?
Irradiation does not make bad food good. It is an expensive way of dealing with bad food. The discerning housewife or restaurateur will not buy bad food because he or she demands food of high quality. However, irradiation may make bad food safe. That is another matter. By destroying biological processes, irradiation may destroy salmonella and various other things and render food safe, but it probably will not render it palatable. It will not make it the sort of food that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I would wish to eat, but it will make it safe.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that food that is going bad should be irradiated and sold''

Mr. Ashby: Of course I am not. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my argument he would know that. That remark is typical of the silly remarks that Opposition Members make. It is a red herring—I suppose it is an irradiated red herring.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: A pinkish herring.

Mr. Ashby: As the hon. Gentleman says, a pinkish herring. It makes nonsense of the argument that it creates good food—it does not. Bad food does not become good food as a result of irradiation, but it could become safe food. It is perfectly clear to me and to most sensible people that the housewife and the restaurateur will not buy food that is not of a high standard. Why should they pay a high price because food has gone through that process? It just will not stand the market.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I fail to see the subtlety of the argument of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). He is saying that irradiation does not make bad food good, but it makes bad food safe. This is one of our concerns. Is not there a danger that poor-quality food will be irradiated and returned to the market?

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman should listen to me. used the word "may", not "would". I enjoy cooking. I invite the hon. Gentleman to one of my gourmet meals over the weekend, when he may sample something that is cooked with good-quality food. You are invited also, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The good housewife—even the reasonable housewife—and the good Member of Parliament understand good-quality food and know that it will produce certain results. They will not tolerate bad-quality food. That is why the argument that bad-quality food will be irradiated is not sound. The market will not take it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to some prawns that were exported to Holland for irradiation and were re-imported into the United Kingdom. How would a housewife know whether prawns had been irradiated?

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman has obviously never been shopping for prawns. If he had, he would know jolly well what a good prawn looks like and what a bad prawn looks like. I suspect that a bad prawn is good only for a rather bad curry, rather than for a good prawn cocktail. I go shopping, so I have my feet on the ground in that respect.
This is an enabling provision. Irradiation will be subject to careful regulation and monitoring, and it will take place in proper premises that have been built for the purpose. Any food that is to be irradiated will be subject to instant inspection. I return to the tinned food analogy. How can we be certain about the quality of meat or any other item that is going into tinned food? We are satisfied with the quality of that food because food inspectors regularly inspect premises, processes and food. One can imagine the devastation that would be caused by a factory using bad food or a bad process. Several years ago, we had problems with poor meat from a canning factory in Argentina. I well remember the cases of salmonella that occurred as a result of that problem about 10 or 15 years ago. Such poisoning problems are as evident with canning as with any other process. However, irradiation will ensure that there is no salmonella poisoning. That is the one sort of poison that irradiation will eradicate.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is laying a little too much stress on the example of tinning as a new process that has so far been successful. After all, many new things that are introduced are not successful. Over time, lead in petrol and chlorofluorocarbons have turned out to have bad consequences that were not envisaged at the time of their introduction. The fact that something is new does not necessarily make it right.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can do so, will he publicly examine two prawns and tell us which has been irradiated and which has not? If he were to do so publicly, does he really think that he would get it right?

Mr. Ashby: I could not tell which prawn was irradiated and which was not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—but I can tell which is a good prawn and which is a bad prawn——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is truly a veritable gourmet.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) do it?

Mr. Ashby: I would choose the prawn of the best quality. I would reject a bad-quality prawn that had been irradiated and thus rendered safe from bacteria because I should be able to tell that it was of bad quality even though it had been irradiated and was safe to eat. That is my point.
Not only will irradiation be monitored and subject to careful regulations, but irradiated food will also be subject to labelling. We must also bear in mind that there is consumer choice. The housewife—and, indeed, anyone else—has the right to choose the food she buys. That also means that she is choosing the system of food production. Labelling will give the housewife that choice. Nobody is pushing irradiated food down the throats of the public. People will be able to choose whether they wish to purchase irradiated food. Many retail stores around the country have already decided not to stock irradiated food. That is their choice and it will be a matter for the housewife's choice. In due course, the housewife may well demand that certain foods are irradiated. The decision of those retail stores may then be reversed. This is all part of consumer choice and free trade.
I am looking forward to the irradiation of food because it will improve the quality of some foods. Certain foods cannot be irradiated. The Opposition have referred to salmonella in eggs. Eggs cannot be irradiated, but the process can be applied to a whole host of other items.
I look forward to the day when I shall be able to choose tropical fruits that have been irradiated. I was born in a tropical country and have always enjoyed tropical fruits. At the moment most of the tropical fruits that I eat over here have been picked green and do not have the taste of the sun that I remember so well from my childhood. I am looking forward to eating fruits that have been picked much closer to the eating date, which have been ripened in the sun and irradiated so that I can eat them in this country with the full taste that I remember from my childhood. I am very much looking forward to that and to exercising my consumer choice.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Irradiated mangoes.

Mr. Ashby: Yes. I am looking forward to irradiated mangoes, especially the small sweet ones.
The food industry in this country is run largely on the basis of trust, although there is regulation and inspection. The Opposition treat the food industry as though it was based on a conspiracy, but everything that we eat is produced largely on the basis of trust. The food industry is, and has shown itself to be, a trustworthy industry. Spot checks by health officials have shown that in the overwhelming majority of cases that trust has been kept by the food industry. I cannot believe that it will break that trust. I cannot believe that the retail chains will put their good names at risk or risk their livelihoods or the loyalty of their shareholders by putting into the food chain bad quality food which has been irradiated.
The Opposition are engaged in scare tactics. No scientific body can show that the proper irradiation of food is dangerous to health. Indeed, committees all over the world maintain that irradiation is a good system. It is one of many systems, which means that there will be choice. Consumers will not be forced to eat irradiated food which will be carefully labelled. I have no doubt that in due course irradiation will prove to be a popular system. I, for one, certainly look forward to it.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: When I heard the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) describe how he was looking forward to eating irradiated tropical fruits—and irradiated this and irradiated that—it reminded me of the enthusiasm for beefburgers of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of how the right hon. Gentleman was willing to volunteer his little girl to test the safety of British beef. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for irradiation and his appetite for irradiated tropical fruits do not convince me that the process is safe.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) have tried to label those who oppose radiation as Luddites and have said that they are somehow anti-progress and that they would have been anti-tin can if they had been born in that age. I must advise the hon. Gentlemen that the British Medical Association is among the opponents of irradiation. The BMA can hardly be described as Luddite because all the medical progress of the 20th century and the improvements in medical care have depended on the rapid implementation of all technical advances, including the use of irradiation. As we know, radiotherapy is part of cancer treatment. The BMA can see the benefits of radiotherapy, but it is discriminating enough to be concerned about the widescale application of irradiation to food for human consumption.
I am no Luddite. My professional training was as a scientist—as a chemist and a research worker in chemistry. I have examined the idea of food irradiation off and on for the past 15 years.

Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why only irradiated food is given to people who have had transplants?

Mr. Williams: They need sterile food which contains no micro-organisms.

Mr. Ashby: rose——

Mr. Williams: I shall not give way again. Irradiation is one of the chief ways of sterilising medical equipment and, in the case of certain illnesses and transplants, food. That is for medical reasons.

Mr. Ashby: It is safe.

6 pm

Mr. Williams: There is no comparison. One cannot conclude that irradiation is safe simply from the fact that someone who has had a heart transplant must eat sterile food. We shall come to some of the dangers of irradiation shortly.
As a chemist I have examined the idea of irradiating food from time to time over the past 15 years. From a naive view, it seems impressive that one can stop potatoes sprouting—that one can interfere so dramatically with a natural process. But, in chemical terms, irradiation fragments living molecules. It fragments proteins and nucleic acids in a random way. It takes a sledgehammer into the food. In every cell perhaps 1 million molecules are split apart randomly. When they recombine they produce a pattern like a jigsaw that has been broken up and thrown together again at random. We have no idea what some of the products of that combination might be. When water molecules are split up hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen atoms are produced. When they recombine the chemical composition has been changed.
As a one-time research chemist in the biological sciences, I am certain in my mind that the materials that are produced from irradiation will include radiolytic products which will be carcinogenic. Establishing that carcinogenicity is as difficult as establishing whether BSE is a hazard to human health. It is extremely difficult to establish because it is impossible to find a test population that is willing, like the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West, to eat 100 per cent. irradiated food. Perhaps, if he is willing to volunteer to eat such food for the next 20 years, we shall have a better idea at the end of that time. But there is no way of demonstrating the absolute safety of the process.
Much of the research work that has been done and used by eminent scientific committees which advise on safety is incredibly suspect and involves cheating. Much of it is dishonest science. We know that irradiation produces off flavours in food. Fats go rancid and vitamins are destroyed. We do not know what will be the effect of irradiation on food additives and pesticides. Pesticides are already incredibly toxic, but they get into our food and our water supplies. We have no idea what will happen when we irradiate pesticides. We are conducting macro experiments on the human population, and we have no right to do that. There are strong grounds to believe that irradiation may damage food, modify the structure of pesticides and produce even more toxic material.
The dosages involved in irradiation of food are equivalent to about 10 million chest X-rays. Let us imagine a conveyor belt carrying our poultry through the irradiation machine, which is the Government's vision. If a human being was on that conveyor belt, irradiation at that dosage would not only kill the person instantly but kill every single cell in his body. That is the dosage needed to kill every single micro-organism and every cell of every micro-organism must be killed. We are dealing with prolific doses of irradiation.
Let us consider the international use of irradiation. Of the 140 countries in the world, only 39 allow irradiation of food and those only for a narrow range of foods. Less than 0·1 per cent. of food is irradiated internationally. The amount of irradiation is trivial compared with salting,

adding sugar, refrigeration, canning, bottling, fermentation, pickling and so on. Yet the Government have it in mind that irradiation of food is one of the key answers to salmonella. The Government have presided over an epidemic of salmonella and now about half the poultry that we buy is infected with it. I am extremely disturbed that the Government regard irradiation as part of the answer. If they have their way, in five or 10 years' time most of the chicken that we buy, whether from a restaurant or supermarket, will be irradiated.
Of the 39 countries that allow irradiation, only 11 allow the irradiation of poultry. We are lining ourselves up with a tiny minority of countries, none of which allows irradiation on a significant scale.

Mr. Gregory: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about how we may be in a minority. Will he reveal to the House at what stage the Labour party moved away from its wisdom of the 1974–79 era when it did not ban irradiation but was a party to it? Then the Labour party saw irradiation as a sensible means of dealing with food products. At what stage did it move away from that position to the crass stupidity of the Luddite view that the hon. Gentleman now puts forward?

Mr. Williams: I shall disregard the hon. Gentleman's last remark as not worthy of him. In the past 20 years, the general public, which is much more important than just the Labour party, has woken up to the dangers of science. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, processes using CFCs and other technologies have gone wrong. The number one technology that has gone wrong is the nuclear industry. The 1974–79 Labour Government supported nuclear energy to some extent, although they did not order any new nuclear power stations. The Labour party is much wiser these days. We determinedly oppose nuclear power, as do the general public. The same goes for all nuclear technologies, including irradiation of food.
I wish to throw back the remark of the hon. Member for York about crass stupidity. The people who stand in the way of the opinion of 90 per cent. of the general public on irradiation are guilty of crass stupidity.
No test is available to detect irradiated food. Several other speakers have already made that point. There is no way in which one can say whether a prawn is irradiated and, if it is irradiated, whether it was irradiated once, twice of three times or whether it received five or 10 times the legal dose. Irradiation is a cowboy's charter because regulating it and proving whether food has been irradiated will be impossible. It is wide open to abuse.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West tacitly implied that there is a danger that bad food will be made, as he put it, safe, but in any case marketable. Internationally, companies will adopt the technology and buy cheap cargoes that could not be sold in France, Germany and the rest of the European Community. They will bring the food here, irradiate it and sell it on our supermarket shelves. There will be no way in which environmental health officers or anyone else could rule out such an abuse.
The Government should listen to public opinion. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is a former Minister responsible for consumer affairs, talked about the consumers' interests. Before the debate this evening I read the latest brief from the Consumers Association. It is implacably


opposed to food irradiation. I have also received a letter from my local authority asking me to vote against it. That opposition is shared by the National Farmers Union, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the big supermarket chains. We should follow the lead of the European Parliament, which voted 4:1 against irradiation.
The Government have demonstrated that their green credentials, such as they are, are in tatters. They support nuclear power and the nuclear industry right through to the irradiation of food.
In Brussels today the Secretary of State for the Environment has gone against the rest of Europe, which wants to control CO2 emissions by 2000. We have done nothing about flue gas desulphurisation or acid rain—not one of our power stations has been cleaned up. During the Whitsun recess we heard the scares about the beaches at Blackpool and elsewhere because of sewage pollution. Thanks to the Government, another product of our times is toxic algae. Above all, the Tories have given us the disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy—[Interruption.] It is a Tory disease because it was caused by the changes to the rendering industry introduced by the Government.
If the Government proceed with the introduction of irradiated food, frankly it will be just another nail in their coffin.

Mr. Churchill: Nobody disputes that it is the right of the consumer to have access to safe, wholesome food, but the housewife already has a terrible battle finding such food for her family.
The problems with beef have already been rehearsed in respect of BSE and potential problems arising from the outfall of radiation from Chernobyl. There are also potential dangers from scrapie in lamb. The shellfish off our north-east coast cannot be consumed now because of toxic algae, and fish from the North sea are increasingly diseased. Eggs are subject to salmonella. Fruit and vegetables are increasingly sprayed with toxins and preservatives. Many of them are applied outside this country, so the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has no control over their use. The housewife is left in absolute ignorance as to their use and their effect. Those problems will be added to by the introduction of the process of irradiation, which has not been proved safe when used on food for human consumption.
The public are also entitled to clear labelling, and I welcome the Government's commitment to introduce such labelling for irradiated foodstuffs. In the absence of any tests to establish whether food has been irradiated at all, or more than once, it makes it almost impossible to monitor shops and restaurants to ensure that they honour the Government's labelling code.
There is no demand from any significant section of the population for the introduction of irradiated food. Many responsible national bodies have expressed their opposition to it, including the Consumers Association, the British Medical Association, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the National Federation of Meat Traders.
The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have made it clear that it is their opinion, based on the authority of their experts, that there is no evidence of any harmful

effects from irradiated food. I absolutely and unequivocally accept that, but I am sure that they will concede that that is far from stating that irradiated food is safe for human consumption. Might one not have said exactly the same two or three years ago about the possibility of a scrapie-like disease being passed on to beef cattle and other species which had been fed the ground bones of animals, including diseased sheep? Is it not those very same experts, on whom Ministers now rely for their expert advice, who bear responsibility for the present situation? Until about three years ago they believed that it was perfectly safe and acceptable for the ground bones of diseased animals to be fed to herbivores, such as beef cattle. That has led us to the present disaster; a blight has been put on the entire British beef industry. Are not those experts the same ones who are now advising MAFF on irradiated food? That should give us cause not to fall too deeply into the hands of experts, but to approach the matter with a healthy degree of caution.
6.15 pm
I am suggesting not that it is unsafe for humans to consume irradiated foodstuffs, but merely that no one knows for sure one way or the other. My right hon. Friend has been unable to advance any proof of safety. The scientific community is sharply divided on this issue and some suspect that it may prove harmful. The fact is that no one knows. Surely the path of caution is the only sensible course for the Government to take.
Little is known about the chemical changes and consequent potential effect of irradiating food treated with modern pesticides, hormones, chemicals and other food additives—let alone about the effect on the packaging that surrounds those foods. Little is known about the effect of irradiation on the nutritional value of food and the vitamins that it contains.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend has said that science is divided on this, but as far as I am aware 35 countries have approved the irradiation of food as well as the World Health Organisation, the United States Food and Drugs Administration and our Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. Can my hon. Friend tell me about those scientists who are against irradiation?

Mr. Churchill: Several countries have refused to endorse the irradiation of food. Australia, after a two-year in-depth study, imposed a three-year moratorium on the importation, sale or production of irradiated foodstuffs. Many other countries and many states in the United States have imposed such bans.
The way in which some of the evidence is used by those who want to ram irradiated food down our throats is especially disturbing. Some of the evidence is based on a misrepresentation of the facts. One such example is the data summary produced by the joint expert committee of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation. That summary appears, either accidentally or deliberately, to misrepresent the conclusion arrived at by the international food irradiation project conducted in Karlsruhe in West Germany. It stated that, apart from the general effect of including spices in the diet of animals,
no other treatment-related findings were observed and no differences between irradiated spice or non-irradiated spice-fed animals were seen in any of the findings.


That piece of evidence which the committee called in aid arrived at a totally different conclusion. The interim report published in the international food irradiation project series by the Karlsruhe group showed that rats fared less well on a diet which included spices than on a diet without spices, but that it was possible to feed a high-spiced diet as the basis of investigating toxicological problems with irradiated spices.
The final, unpublished report covers the comparison of animals fed diets including irradiated and non-irradiated spices and says in its conclusion:
Irradiation of spices by 1·5 Mrad shows an increased effect in reducing food intake and body weight. This means that irradiation causes a change in chemical composition of spices which has an influence on animals even at the 2 per cent. level.
In other words, there is an observable effect associated with the irradiation of spices, even at the lowest level at which spices were included in the diet of rats—the 2 per cent. level.
In view of the weight attached by the Government to the World Health Organisation report, one is bound to wonder whether the whole question of the database on which it was founded needs re-examining, for there was a specific case of either oversight or misrepresentation.
The irradiation of food is clearly no panacea. As has been pointed out, it cannot deal effectively with salmonella in eggs or with the problem of listeria in paté and it cannot destroy toxins such as botulism. What, then, is the purpose of introducing regulations that will allow the irradiation of food? What foods need to be irradiated, anyway? There are two answers: first, food that is of dubious hygiene; and, secondly, to extend the shelf life of food which otherwise within a matter of days would become unfit for human consumption.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend concede that in the case of spices, where the chemical process will no longer be available—it will be illegal—irradiation is the only alternative?

Mr. Churchill: No, because the principal importers of spices have pioneered and developed an alternative means of providing for the hygiene of spices involving a process of steam pasteurisation. They claim that that is preferable to, and as satisfactory as, irradiation. Indeed, the Government have time and again cited the irradiation of spices as being the prime reason for introducing legislation—to enable spices to be rendered hygienic without going through the present process involving chemicals that are carcinogenic to those who apply them. That is an added reason why there is neither urgency nor need for the proposed regulations.
I endorse the view of the Marks and Spencer technical executive who said:
If food is already safe, as we believe it is, in our shops, there is no need for this extra process.
Food irradiation will be seized on by those at the bottom end of the food industry—the cowboys of the market—to make saleable otherwise unsaleable food. I am amazed that the Government should wish to go along with such a process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who is no longer in his place, said he could tell a good prawn from a bad one. He cited the great cost of the process of irradiation. I draw

attention to the 1986 case involving Young's prawns, questions about which the Minister did not answer satisfactorily in Committee or at an earlier stage.
The Young's prawns were unmarketable in this country and were sent back to Holland to be irradiated. Those involved in that scandal were obviously not bothered about the cost of irradiation because they knew that the consignment they had on their hands was valueless as it stood and that it was well worth paying for irradiation so that the goods could be brought back and marketed in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West would have been able, with his undoubtedly sensitive nose, to detect the quality of those prawns, particularly if they had been frozen or wrapped in other packaging.
The case for irradiated foodstuffs has not been made out, at any rate not for food for human consumption, and the Government are taking unnecessary risks with public health. It will give me no pleasure to vote against the Government. I shall have no choice but to do so unless the Minister gives an undertaking to defer introducing the regulations until the European Community has reached a judgment on the matter. If he gives that undertaking, I shall with pleasure join him in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I give credit to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for urging the Goverment time and again to tread the path of caution on this issue. But I fear that his warning will go unheeded today, as it has until now, because it would be inconvenient for the Government to take his advice. They need to pretend to the public that they are tackling the multiple food problems that have arisen since the Conservatives took power. Irradiation is that step, their excuse, when they should be taking proper action.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, irradiation will do nothing to counter the problems of botulism, listeria, BSE, salmonella and the toxins that account for much food poisoning. It will not clean up contaminated food. It will simply dangerously disguise that contamination.
I fear that Ministers, supporters of irradiation and those who are trying to sell certain produce will fool people into believing that irradiation is a worthwhile process from the health point of view. Nothing of the sort has been proved. In any event, it is being introduced not for health reasons but for profit reasons.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in a speech on 1 March, repeated in a MAFF press release, that opposition to irradiation was
a torrent of pseudo-science.
With that statement he discounted all the opposition that had come from the Consumers Association, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the BMA, food producers and retailers, the National Federation of Meat Traders and from public health organisations such as the Farm and Food Society, the London Food Commission and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. He discounted the findings of the Cantox committee of the Canadian Parliament which said that there were some unresolved questions. His own Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods said that further research was needed in many areas. But the Minister said that that was all a torrent of pseudo-science.
6.30 pm
What science have we had from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It has presented no proof that irradiation is safe and has carried out no work. What research has been carried out into thermo-luminescence? The Ministry has not even waited for conclusions, but is presenting to Parliament a measure that will allow food to be irradiated without restriction. Allowing such as measure to go ahead is what I would call pseudo-science.
The Ministry has not carried out any checks on the effects of packaging. Few packaging materials have been tested and some people have said that some packaging materials might migrate to the food or that the food itself might undergo changes and become carcinogenic. There have been no tests on the effects of irradiation or pesticides on food additives. There is a great deal of confusion about labelling. The EEC proposes two labels. One would say that the food was irradiated and the other would say that it was treated by ionising radiation. That is a recipe for confusion and the public will not know where they are.
There is no test to determine whether a product has been irradiated and there is certainly no control on the extent of irradiation that takes place. That will not appear on labels. Unscrupulous people in the food industry will not affix a label even if the food is irradiated. It will not be possible to check such action and therefore it will go unpunished. That is the real response to the argument about choice. What choice is there for the consumer in such cases?
My last point is in many ways about class. The worst foods go to the poorest people in Britain who end up paying higher prices than they should. Irradiated food will be cheaper than fresh, untarnished and non-irradiated food, but people can buy only what they can afford and will buy food that is at the end of its shelf life and is bacteriologically unsound. Irradiation kills the nutrients and vitamins that are crucial to people's diet. It will worsen the diet. The Tories are trail-blazers for worst practice in the food industry and irradiation is another example. It will lead to a serious slackening in food hygiene and a poorer diet.

Mr. Ron Davies: We have heard another powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). It was one in a series of such speeches from the Opposition which have shown unanimous and forceful opposition to irradiation. The Opposition are under no illusion. If the new clause is accepted, it will mean that the Government will not be able to introduce measures approving of irradiation. If the clause is defeated, it will be tantamount to a vote in favour of irradiation.
All the arguments that have been presented about the rights of the consumer, the possible weakening of the confidence of the consumer in the British food industry and the protection of public health will be swept to one side if the new clause is defeated. There is no doubt that the public are greatly concerned, as are manufacturers, food producers and retailers, about the consequences of irradiation. Serious questions are being asked about the scope and validity of the scientific verification of irradiation. That has been recognised by most hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) made an honest and courageous speech in which he considered all the arguments, just as he did on Second

Reading. I applaud his integrity in saying that he intends to join us in the Lobby, but I am disappointed that such integrity is not shared by some of his hon. Friends who have considerable reservations about irradiation. On Second Reading they demonstrated those reservations. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who I am sure will shortly be back in his place, intervened on Second Reading. He said:
My right hon. Friend says that there is no distinction between a product that is pasteurised and one that is irradiated. I fully take his point about labelling and the importance of that, but scientists are able to undertake a test to show that a product has been pasteurised. How can he, with hand on heart, promote irradiated foods when, in the event of a court case, there will be no test to show whether the product has been irradiated? That invalidates the fundamentals of his argument"—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 1029.]
Those are strong words. The hon. Gentleman did not say that the balance of judgment was one way or the other but spoke about the fundamentals of the argument being invalidated. The hon. Gentleman has undergone something of a conversion because he now says that we must question the reliability of the tests. He knows, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm, that it is not a question of testing the validity of the tests or their reliability; there is no test. The way in which the hon. Member for York destroyed the Minister's argument on 8 March holds true today.
The hon. Member for York was not alone on Second Reading, because the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) said that people should know what they are eating. The hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) was forceful in her condemnation. I remind the House that the hon. Lady is a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and has certainly canvassed the arguments. She said:
There is still public concern about what we accept as the evidence of the experts and the qualified scientists.
That point was made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme. The hon. Lady went on:
My right hon. Friend will have to take account of the public perception. It may be an erroneous perception, but we still have to deal with it; we cannot bulldoze it."—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c.1041.]
Those are wise words and I should have thought that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, after its bruising experiences in the last couple of weeks when it realised that it had lost public confidence on the matter of scientific judgments, would have learnt that lesson. Unfortunately it has not. It says that the scientists have said that it is all right. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has said, the Ministry is discriminating about how it accepts scientific advice. If it fits the Ministry's preconditions it is infallible, but if it does not fit those preconditions or the political agenda the Ministry chooses to ignore it. I shall develop that point later.
The House must address several key arguments. First, the case for irradiation has not been put. I hope that the Minister will put it. It was not put on Second Reading and the need for irradiation has not been established. As many of my hon. Friends have said, if food is wholesome, properly stored and handled and consumed within the appropriate time irradiation is not needed.
If there are problems in our food industry they will not be remedied by a quick fix at the end of the process. We must make sure that the food production and handling


processes are themselves remedied. I compliment the Government on some parts of the Bill which address that problem. Irradiation will not clean up the food chain, but will allow a quick fix for a contaminated product at the end of a faulty chain. That is the crux of the argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) is an authority on safety. I know that he has followed the debate closely, and doubtless he will be reading my comments in Hansard tomorrow, as he is not here. There are major questions about the safety of the process and the impact that it has on irradiated food. We know that there are toxic residues. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that no research has been done into the impact of the process of irradiation on the pesticides residues that might he in some processed food that are then wrapped in cellophane, or other, new, products.

Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No. The hon. Gentleman made a long speech and I do not have time to give way.
We know that irradiation does not provide immunity to listeria and that there are inherent dangers in creating a vacuum. The destruction of the microbiological life creates a vacuum and, if a product is then subjected to secondary contamination, such secondary contamination will grow at a pace that we cannot comprehend, making the product even more dangerous than it would have been had it not been irradiated.
The Minister's response to all this is that we must rely on the scientists. They will have it right, they have done their tests and they are always infallible. That amuses me when I consider the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I presume that his philosophy is that scientists are always infallible except on Sundays, because on Sundays there is a higher authority. It seems that we have to rely on the Bible when making choices about eating habits, and it tells us that vegetarianism is an unnatural practice. I have heard some unscientific statements but that takes the unirradiated biscuit.
Let us have a look at the Government's record in accepting scientific advice. They were told that the proposal for a ban on the sale of green top milk—untreated milk—was supported by the enforcement authorities, scientists and a number of other expert organisations, particularly those concerned with public health. What was the Government's response? For political reasons, they decided to ignore the scientists' advice.
Among other things, the Tyrrell committee recommended a survey of the brains of cattle sent to slaughter, to monitor the incidence of unrecognised infection by BSE, and the examination of the relative susceptibility of calves to BSE. The Government had gathered together qualified scientifists under the chairmanship of Tyrrell to give them recommendations on research priorities, but, because it was politically inconvenient to accept those recommendations, they were pushed to one side. The same thing happened with the Richmond committee which made a great many recommendations about microbiological contamination which the Government rejected.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council is composed of experts. They are qualified people—vets, and people concerned with public health and animal welfare. They are

all handpicked by the Government for their expertise, scientific qualifications and experience in their chosen field. Of its 51 scientific recommendations, only 18 are to be implemented, while the rest are sacrificed because they do not fit the Government's political agenda.
6.45 pm
This is all a bit rich when consumers are increasingly suspecting the Government's honesty in their handling of these matters. Well-verified surveys show that 65 per cent. of the public believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot be relied on to tell them the truth about food safety. It is no wonder that they suspect the Ministry or that, with that track record, they do not want irradiation.
There is no consumer pressure for irradiation and retailers such as Asda, Budgen, the Co-op, Gateway, Iceland Frozen Foods, Littlewoods, Londis, Marks and Spencer, Spar, Tesco and Waitrose are all opposed to it. The National Farmers Union is also opposed to it, as is the National Federation of Women's Institutes. Why are the Government hellbent on driving this legislation through, against all informed opinion and against the abundant reservations felt by Tory Back Benchers? It defies logic. There is no pressure from Europe, and the European Parliament has voted to oppose irradiation. Increasingly, all the pressure is to reduce the amount of irradiation allowed. There have been many powerful arguments against the proposal.
The Government's defence is that the public will have a choice, but that argument was destroyed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). There can be no choice, because there is no diagnostic test, and without such a test the Government and the public health authorities cannot monitor or check whether food has been irradiated. Even if they could check, they would not be able to bring any prosecutions because there would be no evidence without a diagnostic test. If one cannot enforce legislation or prosecute, how can the Minister say that there will be a choice for consumers?
Fortunately, the new clause offers the House a choice. I hope that those Tory Members who share our view will exercise their choice and vote for the new clause.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): It was a shame that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) went a bit over the top and spoiled a rather interesting debate. He continued to say what has been said by Labour Members many times, and gave us the same old myth that the Government regard this as a panacea or as a silly quick fix, or that they are in a terrible hurry to introduce irradiation. This must be one of the slowest quick fixes in history. The food irradiation process was invented in 1902, but only in 1982 did the British Government begin to consider it, setting up an independent expert advisory committee to examine the matter.
The committee took five years to study the process, although the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Americans and the EC had been looking into the matter. Hundreds of expert committees had examined it. In 1987, the committee reported. The Government did not automatically accept its view. They had some queries, and sent the report back,


and it was not until last year that the committee again reported. That is why we have felt it perfectly reasonable to bring in the necessary changes that will allow us, after consultation and after formal regulations have been made, to go ahead with irradiation in certain cases.
We have heard an awful lot of what irradiation cannot do, as if that was something fatal in its character. We heard that it cannot remove toxins in the food. We know that is true. It cannot remove botulism, it cannot make the coffee and it cannot hoover the carpet, but none of us has suggested that it could do all these wonderful things. We have merely said that it has a small useful part to play if consumers and the industry want to use it, along with the deep freezing techniques, the techniques for canning peas and drying mashed potato and other food processing techniques. We think that this process should be made available if people want to use it, because we believe that it is safe, and all the expert evidence from around the world believes that it is safe.
The ridiculous statement has been made that, if one irradiates something and kills off bugs, thereby creating a vacuum, the bugs grow more prolifically in the vacuum. That is unscientific gobbledegook. Irradiation is not like pulling a few thistles out of a garden and leaving more room for the weeds to grow; bacteriologically it does not work in that way, and it is nonsense to suggest it.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) cast doubts on the World Health Organisation, and quoted others for his purpose. He should quote the World Health Organisation itself, and listen to what its director general has said. He said:
WHO is satisfied regarding the safety of irradiating any food commodity up to an overall average dose of 10 kilograys.
It would be difficult to find a blunter statement than that. Golden rule number one of the World Health Organisation's "Golden Rules for Safe Food Preparation" says:
if you have the choice, select fresh or frozen poultry treated with ionising radiation.
We have not heard much about that tonight.
The hon. Member for Truro quoted the European Parliament as if it were an expert on the matter. However, he did not quote expert advisory committees from around the world, or even the independent committee advising the British Government. It is unworthy of him to come to the House and pretend that the opinions of politicians—in any part of the world—are equal to the opinions of expert scientific committees.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: No. I have little time, as the Opposition want me to finish by 7 o'clock.
I have great respect for the views of environmental health officers, trading standards officers and the National Farmers Union. However, I do not think that anyone would suggest that they are among the world's experts on the techniques of ionising radiation.
Tonight we have heard what Opposition Members consider to be the most damning indictment of irradiation—their erroneous allegation that all around the world other countries are backtracking. Australia was quoted.

The Australian Government have announced a moratorium, but it was not based on the views of an expert scientific committee of leading microbiologists, toxicologists and experts on radiation, physics and nutrition who all agreed that irradiation was safe. My hon. Friends may be interested to hear that the moratorium was prompted by the recommendations of the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts. That is the Les Patterson approach to Government policy; we shall base our policy on firmer grounds.

Mr. Churchill: Does my hon. Friend accept that that committee, which conducted an in-depth survey over two years, took a good deal of evidence from many highly qualified scientific expert advisers?

Mr. Maclean: I accept that. Any political committee in any House of Commons or House of Representatives throughout the world would do the same. However, it was essentially a political decision, made for political reasons and not based on science or safety.
The main point that I wish to make concerns the question whether the Americans are backing down on irradiation. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said that, in the United States, herbs and spices were irradiated, but not chicken. Therefore, he asked, what was the point of it? In his view, that was proof that irradiation was dangerous. He is slightly out of date. On I May this year, the United States Food and Drug Administration—which is highly respected, and whose lead we are urged to follow—in many areas—after careful evaluation of toxicity studies, reports on microbiological considerations and nutritional studies, authorised the irradiation of fresh and frozen poultry meat in addition to the other products for which the process is permitted. The pressure came not from industry or from capitalists who wanted to irradiate chickens, but from the food safety and inspection service of the United States Government. It thought that that would constitute
an important public health benefit.
It is noteworthy that food irradiation in the United States has the support of not only the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, but the American Medical Association, the Council of Agricultural Science and Technology, the American Council on Science and Health and others.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), like some of my hon. Friends, was concerned about monitoring. The regulatory controls that we plan to introduce will amount to the close and detailed control that the public will expect to be imposed if we go ahead. Our proposals for controls are based on EC discussions, and on a study of the regulations in more than 20 countries that already operate controls.
First, no one will be able to undertake irradiation in Britain without a full and detailed prior inspection by highly trained experts, capable of assessing ability to carry out the process correctly. Secondly, those who undertake it will be subject to detailed conditions on all aspects of their business, which will be set out in a formal licence. Thirdly, they will be restricted to treating the foods stipulated in the licence and to the doses specified therein for the irradiation objectives for which they have received official approval. Fourthly, they will be required to keep detailed records of all aspects of their business. Fifthly, they will be subject to inspection at any time. Sixthly, they


will be subject to microbiological testing to confirm suitability for treatment. Finally—as we have said many times—there will be comprehensive labelling, which will apply to restaurants as well. The controls that the Government have planned are in line with those recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and are included in EC proposals in the draft directive.
Some hon. Members were concerned about enforcement. Specialist inspectors within central Government are already familiar with the work involved in inspecting irradiation premises, and local authority officers have great experience in the enforcement of food hygiene provisions. We are well placed to police the systems effectively.
Mention has been made tonight of the Dutching technique. The impression was given that every day loads of prawns or other illegal consignments were going around the world. There is only one example of that—Young's, in 1985. It was contrary to the rules, and we condemn anyone who breaks the rules, but it is not right for the Opposition to give the impression that there is a Dutching industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) asked about a test. Of course, no viable test has yet been devised anywhere in the world. However, both the WHO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission are satisfied that adequate controls can be imposed on the basis of documentary checks. An adequate detection test is not regarded as essential to a rigorous and adequate control system.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme—to whose contribution I listened with great interest and respect—that irradiation is not the only food process for which there is no detection test. Documentation is relied on for verification in the case of food produced by organic methods, meat derived from animal slaughter by ritual procedures and date stamps on products; there are no magic detection tests in those instances. We believe that they are not necessary in the case of irradiated food either, although they will be a worthwhile bonus when they come along.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) ruined his case by being ridiculous and trying to scare us. He is a scientist, but he told the House that irradiation was so dangerous that if a human being was put on an irradiation conveyor belt and shoved through the irradiation plant it would destroy all the genes in his body. I bet it would. If we shoved people on the pea-canning conveyor that would destroy all the genes in their body as well; if they were stuck in an Aga for two hours that would also kill them. That is the ridiculous level to which the hon. Member for Carmarthen and others have sunk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme asked for the database to be checked. I assure him that the database is checked constantly. No subject has been examined more exhaustively than irradiation, and it will continue to be examined. I fear that he misquoted me, so I must put the matter right. I do not think that there is no evidence that irradiation is unsafe: all the evidence is that it is safe. That is positive. I refer my hon. Friend to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, which said in the first of the conclusions in its summary:
The overwhelming weight of evidence is that irradiation of food, on the limited basis proposed by the Commission, is safe.

7 pm
We have consistently maintained that irradiation is but one of the processes that we think have a beneficial use in food processing techniques. It is certainly not a panacea, and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not suggest that it is. There will be full and comprehensive labelling and monitoring to ensure compliance with the rules. Irradiation is backed as a safe process by all the expert committees in the world that have considered the matter. The scientific community is not divided. We have the backing of the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Food and Drug Administration, the EC expert committee and the British Government's independent committee.
I give the House the assurance that it is not the end of the matter—irradiation will not be introduced when we vote against the Opposition's new clause. Irradiation can be brought in only when the Government come before the House with detailed regulations, having had a period of consultation. Then, and only then, will the House make a final decision.
If all the irradiation plants in the world were uprooted tomorrow and brought to England, they would only irradiate a maximum capacity of less than 2 per cent. of our food. It is nonsense for the Opposition to suggest that we will be swamped with irradiated food. We are entitled to give the same choice to the 5, 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of our population as the French housewife has at this very moment. She can buy irradiated food in supermarkets in France. If it is good enough for the French housewife, British housewives should have the same right in the choice of food. I urge the House to reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 223.

Division No. 227]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coleman, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Crowther, Stan


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cryer, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Dr John


Beckett, Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Don


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Blair, Tony
Doran, Frank


Blunkett, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boateng, Paul
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Boyes, Roland
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Buckley, George J.
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Flynn, Paul


Carr, Michael
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Foster, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Galloway, George


Clay, Bob
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clelland, David
George, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John






Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gordon, Mildred
Mullin, Chris


Gould, Bryan
Murphy, Paul


Graham, Thomas
Nellist, Dave


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, William


Grocott, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hinchliffe, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Radice, Giles


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Geraint
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hoyle, Doug
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Illsley, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Ingram, Adam
Ruddock, Joan


Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McWilliam, John
Walley, Joan


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Maxton, John
Wilson, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meale, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Michael, Alun
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amos, Alan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Ashby, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baldry, Tony
Buck, Sir Antony


Batiste, Spencer
Budgen, Nicholas


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Burt, Alistair


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carrington, Matthew


Body, Sir Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chope, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)





Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lightbown, David


Conway, Derek
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Maclean, David


Couchman, James
Mans, Keith


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Critchley, Julian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Miller, Sir Hal


Day, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman


Devlin, Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Sir David


Dicks, Terry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dorrell, Stephen
Monro, Sir Hector


Dover, Den
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dunn, Bob
Moss, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dykes, Hugh
Needham, Richard


Eggar, Tim
Nelson, Anthony


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Neubert, Michael


Evennett, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Norris, Steve


Forth, Eric
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fox, Sir Marcus
Page, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Paice, James


Freeman, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gale, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gill, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodlad, Alastair
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Portillo, Michael


Gorst, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Gow, Ian
Price, Sir David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gregory, Conal
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Ground, Patrick
Rost, Peter


Hague, William
Rowe, Andrew


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hannam,John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Harris, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hayes, Jerry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hayward, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Speller, Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Squire, Robin


Hind, Kenneth
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Steen, Anthony


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stern, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stevens, Lewis


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hunter, Andrew
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Irving, Sir Charles
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jack, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Jackson, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Janman, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Key, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knapman, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Thurnham, Peter






Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William



Wardle, Charles (Bexhlll)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Wheeler, Sir John



Whitney, Ray

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

FINANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

'.—(1) This section shall have effect for securing the effective implementation of the duties conferred under this Act.

(2) The Ministers shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out their estimates of the resources likely to be required by food authorities in the financial year 1991–92 for the purposes of the carrying out of their functions under this Act.

(3) The Ministers shall before the commencement of any financial year consult organisations representative of food authorities before the announcement of any plans for public expenditure in respect of that year as to the estimated cost in that year of the maintenance and improvement of food standards in their areas, including the cost of staffing, training, and the provision and maintenance of adequate laboratory facilities or access thereto.

(4) The Ministers shall satisfy themselves generally that the resources available to food authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out by them of their functions under this section.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 seeks to ensure the effective implementation of the Bill. It is worth putting it on record that the Opposition did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and that in Committee we were at pains to press the Government on a series of points which we thought were necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the measures that we support.
New clause 2 explores the financial arrangements and, in particular, seeks to ensure that Parliament is aware of the full cost to local authorities of the Bill's implementation, to ensure that local authorities are consulted and to provide specifically that Ministers are satisfied that the resources that they make available are adequate to meet the demands of implementation.
It emerged strongly in Committee that the Bill does not place duties on local authorities to enforce the measures in the Bill; rather it gives powers to local authorities to exercise their discretion. That is not a principle with which we would necessarily disagree, but we recognise that if powers rather than duties are given to local authorities serious questions are raised about how one ensures that those powers are adequately enforced.
7.15 pm
It is worth drawing to the attention of the House that there is no mechanism within the Bill, within the financial arrangements, or within the Department of the Environment, which presumably will be the Department which ensures a flow of money from the Government to local authorities, to require action to be taken by local authorities in the event of deficiencies being identified in

the food industry within their area of responsibility. Nor is there any mechanism to ensure that the resources that are made available are used for the purpose for which they have been earmarked—food safety. There is no mechanism in the Bill to ensure the monitoring of the way in which local authorities discharge the duties contained in the Bill. That is a serious omission.
The Government may be able to convince me of the error of my ways, but the Minister did not strike me as being particularly on form when he assured us tonight that what was good for French consumers was good for British consumers. However, we may want to explore that later. If the Minister can convince me that adequate systems are in place to ensure the proper implementation of the measure, I will be happy.
I was a member of a local authority for about 15 years before I was elected to Parliament, and as a result of that and my relationship with local authority officers since I know that no finger of criticism can be pointed at those who are responsible for inspecting food. On the contrary, it is obvious that they have been anxious to expand the monitoring of food and the scope and nature of their work. But they continually tell me that, no matter how diligent or keen they are to discharge those responsibilities, they are always hamstrung by the lack of finance from Government.
Local authorities frequently have to decide whether to employ people in their environmental health departments to monitor food establishments and carry out other duties. They have to judge whether to allocate resources to public health, housing, social services, welfare, leisure or a range of other responsibilities that local authorities have. I hope that the new clause will allow us to explore some of those questions.
On Second Reading, the Government made great play of the fact that about £30 million was being made available. On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister was quizzed about the financial arrangements. We wanted to know whether the notional £30 million would be hard cash. He said that the £30 million would be taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement. We asked whether it would be new money—whether the existing money would be put to one side and a new calculation made based on the additional responsibilities that local authorities will have costing £30 million, and then £30 million added to the local authorities' existing resources. If so, that would mean a real increase in local authority resources. Local authorities across the land would be able to say when fixing their budgets, "We have an additional £50,000"—or £100,000 or £150,000, or £200,000—"from central Government in cash terms. We have more money this year than last year, so we can now implement the measures contained in the Food Safety Bill."
We raised that matter several times in Committee. The Minister may recall his remarks on 22 March. I know that relations between the Department of Health and MAFF are a little strained just now, because they have a different understanding of their respective responsibilities in food safety measures. I do not blame the Department of Health in its current subterranean attempts to impinge on the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): We are the best of friends.

Mr. Davies: I was not referring to individual Ministers because you and I both know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the real battle was going on between the Secretary of State for Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. That was clearly instanced when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came to the House to fight for his political life over the BSE issue, and the Secretary of State for Health was not to be seen. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not going to come here to lend his support to the Minister but wanted to dissociate himself entirely.
In the light of the interesting development in the relationship between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I am not sure that I would call it constructive tension—the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee:
We have made the allocation of £30 million. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health made matters clear.
One assumes that he had made matters clear beyond doubt, and that there could be no further argument. The Minister continued:
I understand the Opposition's scepticism about whether it is new or old money or funny money, as the hon. Member for Carlisle suggested."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 March 1990; c. 49.]
But matters had not been made very clear if the Minister had to add:
I understand the Opposition's scepticism about whether it is new or old money or funny money".
That is at the heart of the amendment.
For the purposes of tonight's debate, let us give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and assume that £30 million of additional money will be available. That is a dubious prospect because of the way in which central Government calculate how they make money available to local authorities, through the standard spending assessment. That is done every year according to the importance that the Government attach to the different responsibilities of local authorities—so £1 given for environmental protection this year could be £1·20 next year, or perhaps only 80p. I do not necessarily disagree with that practice because it is a perfectly proper way for Government to influence local authorities, by giving an indication of priorities on a year-to-year basis.
If we received a firm undertaking from the Ministry that there would be no accounting sleight of hand, I would be happy. In fact, the Ministry will provide £30 million notionally to implement the Bill—but when the Government conduct their weighting exercise and decide their priorities in other areas of local authority responsibility, at the end of the day the amount of cash that local authorities are given will not be equal to the sum they received last year, plus an amount to take account of inflation, plus a percentage of the £30 million. On the contrary, even with the measures that the Government will take to extricate themselves from the poll tax fiasco, the amount of cash that local authorities receive will be substantially less.

Mr. Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend is far too kind to the Minister. In calculating the standard spending assessment, the Department of the Environment, in conjunction with the Minister, takes no real account of any additional obligations placed on local authorities. My local authority has been poll tax-capped for additional expenditure relating to the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill from 1 April 1991. What position will the Minister adopt if my local

authority takes steps to make allowance in its budget for next year resources for the implementation of the Food Safety Bill and again finds itself falling foul of the Department of the Environment? Will he ring-fence and protect my local authority?

Mr. Davies: I offer my sincere apologies to my hon. Friend if he thinks that I am being unduly kind to the Minister. It is not for want of trying, but the Minister keeps dodging about. He presents different arguments at different times. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes a valid point that is at the heart of the funding relationship between central and local government. My later comments will support my hon. Friend's argument, but if he wants to intervene later or even to make a brief contribution, I am sure that the House would welcome it, particularly since my hon. Friend represents a local authority that is an exemplary illustration of the deficiencies of the poll tax. His local authority is traditionally very responsible and moderate. It has discharged all the duties required of it by central Government and the public. It has never embarked on spending sprees or overshot its targets. It has always tried to comply with Government spending guidelines—but because of the ludicrous inconsistencies of the poll tax, that local authority, with neighbouring local authorities, has been dragged before the Department of the Environment and told that it will be poll tax-capped.
Because of the continual underfunding of local authorities and the impact of the SSA system, there can be no guarantee that money provided for in the Bill will be used for ensuring food safety. In the current year, about 70 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales are spending above their SSA. I refer not to Labour authorities or to the so-called loony authorities that the Government like to attack. Some are Labour, but some are Conservative. Incidentally, I am glad that we have the continuing presence of the massed ranks of the Liberal and Social Democrats in the form of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), having seen off the SDP. I invite the SLD to join us in the next general election in seeing off the Government.

Mr. David Lighthown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Is that the new alternative strategy?

Mr. Davies: I am delighted that we have something rarely seen in this House—a Whip who can actually speak. That is a rare privilege. Having recognised him, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be appearing in Hansard tomorrow. I have no doubt that at half-past 10 or 11 o'clock a message will come through from the Patronage Secretary, and the hon. Gentleman will be called up to the office and invited to explain why Government Whips are now taking part in debates.
Local authorities are spending above their standard spending assessments. They have more commitments than they have resources from central Government and from the local population via the poll tax. That means that local authorities must make judgments and prioritise. Perhaps at the moment they are using money out of the standard spending assessment for the purposes that I mentioned earlier: care for the elderly, sheltered accommodation, meals on wheels, concessionary fares for pensioners, providing leisure facilities or social facilities for the handicapped and day care facilities for the mentally handicapped. Those are the sorts of thing that progressive authorities, whatever their political hue, will do. Now local


authorities are under increasing pressure from central Government. The choice that they will have to make next year, as they did this year and last, is whether to continue to fund such services or whether to use the new powers that they have been given and divert resources from existing services to food safety.
7.30 pm
I am all in favour of allowing local authorities discretion, but that can be meaningful only if they are allowed resources and if they are allowed to provide services over and above the minimum acceptable standards. The impact of successive Government revenue support settlements is that local authorities are having to, and will have to, make hard judgments whether they implement the Bill or continue to provide services for the elderly, the young, the handicapped or people in need. That is a matter of great concern to Opposition Members. We are worried that there is no guarantee that the money will go to individual local authorities. We do not know, and the Government certainly have not told us. They might tell us tonight and I hope that the Minister can offer us an explanation. The Government have not told us what the mechanism will be, and how they will apportion the funds among local authorities. Will they say that inner city authorities, which might have enormous problems during the day because of the wealth of catering establishments, will be given resources to reflect their duties? Rural authorities, which cover many acres and have a low population density and therefore high costs, may have a lot of industry associated with food. Will their problems be accommodated?
There is a mass exodus of population from the inner cities at night, so there is no point in saying that the amount of money will be calculated on the basis of the residential population. An inner city area might have a large number of catering establishments but very few people living there. How will it have the resources to tackle the problems? Those are the questions that we are pressing the Government to answer, and I hope that the Minister will give some sign, when he responds to the debate, of how he proposes to tackle them.

Mr. Martlew: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid-flow. Does he agree that the other worry is that authorities which provide a good service, like my local authority, which has high numbers of environmental health officers, might be penalised and instead money may go to authorities which had neglected food safety in the past? Does he agree that it would be almost criminal if that happened?

Mr. Davis: Absolutely. That gives the lie to two things: first, the Government's commitment to ensuring the implementation of these measures: and, secondly, to their commitment to good democratic local government, because they are penalising local authorities which have done the job that they are there to do.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, the Bill transfers the burden of implementing measures—if they are to be implemented—on to the poll tax. If additional services are to be provided, and if local authorities are spending above their standard spending assessment—we know that 70 per cent. of them are—any additional expenditure will fall directly on the poll tax. We know that, due to the multiplier effect, a heavy burden will fall on local authorities. I have no doubt that next year we

will have the iniquitous situation of the Government wanting to take local authorities to court, twisting arms and imposing all sorts of poll tax—capping measures. How will local authorities be able to implement the measures contained in the Bill?
The Government say that they will give local authorities the money. But local authorities are spending above their standard spending assessments, so any additional money that they get will be taken up by existing commitments. If they incur new commitments, they will have to add them on to the poll tax and they will immediately be caught by the panoply of measures that the Government will introduce to prevent rises in the poll tax. That that is absolutely unacceptable has been recognised by the local authority associations.
A useful indication of the concern expressed by some local authorities is a note which I received from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It says:
The Government does not provide a detailed breakdown of the individual components of the grant"—
that is, when the revenue support grant settlement is announced—
it only provides Control (i.e. spending) Totals for each block of services. Environmental health"—
that is the block under which food safety measures will be held—
comes into the Other Services block in the category of `Services provided predominantly by district councils'. This covers a rag-bag of services—from Allotments to Registration of Electors—and has a Control total for 1990–91 of £3,891. So, an increase of £30m in the environmental health section would be insignificant and could well be hidden by reductions in other areas. Weasel words such as 'this sum takes account of the increase in spending needed to meet the requirements of the Bill' are used to give the impression that all is well.
All is not well. The Government have to answer some serious questions. We want to know what they are going to do to prevent the burden of implementing the Food Safety Bill from falling on poll tax payers. We want to know whether, when the revenue support grant settlement is announced, the Minister will give a breakdown of how the additional resources, if they exist, will be distributed to local authorities, and how the "Other Services" heading in the AMA briefing will be calculated.
Unless we get satifactory answers to those serious questions, Opposition Members will have no alternative but to conclude that the Government are happy to pass legislation as long as that legislation only gives powers to local authorities rather than places duties upon them. in the absence of money to enforce those powers, the Government cannot be serious about their commitment to food safety.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The debate is a replay of debates in Committee, and the Labour Front Bench spokesmen have talked at length about exchanges that took place there. The key point is not whether money should be specifically allocated. If we believe in the discretion of local authorities, we should not be arguing that point. The key is the basis on which the calculation is being made and on which the money will get to local authorities so that they can implement the new procedures that the Government are requiring of them.
By saying that £30 million has been allocated, the Government acknowledge that extra expenses will be involved and that they should at least take a share of the


burden—I would hope that they will take the bulk of it—through the grants system. That is what the Minister claims that the Government have done.
The reason why new clause 2 is important, and should be pursued—I hope that the Minister will respond positively, if not to the new clause, at least to the spirit in which it was tabled—is that there must be room for debate about whether the money allocated is sufficient. The House has every reason to expect Ministers to come forward with a much fuller explanation of how they have made that calculation, and how they intend funds to be distributed. The House has every justification in asking for and expecting that, because when Ministers were asked in Committee for the basis of their calculation, they were unable to provide any real explanation.
I challenged the Ministers, saying that their calculations amounted to a guesstimate. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as Ministers are prepared to admit it, but they refused to do so. However, they were not able to offer any explanation or any detail about how they had reached that precise figure and were able to say with apparent authority that they had got it absolutely right and that there could be no question about it. I cannot see any evidence of that and the House should not accept it. It seems to me entirely appropriate that hon. Members should ask the Government—and the new clause is one way of doing that—to explain themselves before local authorities are required to bear the cost of implementing the legislation.
If the Government have got it wrong and are not prepared to justify themselves, other services will suffer. I do not believe that local authorities will wish not to implement the legislation, but that could be at a cost to other services or at great cost to the community charge or poll tax payer. Either of those consequences would prove disreputable, given that the Minister is claiming that he has carried out all the calculations to ensure that that will not be the case. There is no reason for the House to believe him, and if he cannot come up with a better answer than he gave in Committee, he should accept the new clause.

Mr. McCartney: I support the new clause which goes to the heart of whether the Government are serious about the implementation of food safety measures. There is general agreement in the House about the concept and the principles of the Bill. Although Opposition Members consider that it has not gone far enough, at least it makes an effort to set out a way forward from the serious food safety problems that have arisen over the past few years. I am referring not simply to the various outbreaks of salmonella and listeria, but to the large increase in the number of restaurants and take-away establishments in Britain. The growth in food production and related service sector industries has been to the detriment of engineering and other traditional industries.
The largest food processing plant in the world, H. J. Heinz of Kitt Green, is in my constituency. Every time hon. Members eat a tin of beans they should think of me and the town of Wigan. A number of other large companies involved in the production and retail sale of food are based in my constituency. Whenever such an establishment has been set up my local authority has used its resources to ensure that those companies have a clear

understanding about the arrangements by which we in Wigan try to maintain high standards of food safety at the point of production and at the point of sale.
However, in the past few years there has been increasing strain on the local authority's ability to maintain those high standards, because central Government have withdrawn resources through grant-related expenditure assessments, the reduction in rate support grant and the introduction of the poll tax. This year alone there has been a reduction of more than £20 million in the Government funding that enables the local authority to run its services. That reduction has occurred precisely when, through this and other Government measures, local authorities are being asked to implement consumer safety legislation.
That legislation has been demanded by the way in which consumers have reacted to food scares and because of their genuine right to ensure that the food that they purchase is as safe as possible. Therefore, if the Government are not prepared to give an absolute commitment to providing local authorities with the necessary resources to implement that legislation, it is essential that we support the new clause.
Staffing and training are essential in the development of codes of practice at local level, working with industry and those involved in the retail sale of food to maintain and improve existing standards. Unfortunately, the high standards in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) do not represent the pattern throughout the rest of the country. In many areas there is a lack of resources because of the deliberate policy of local authorities, cuts in expenditure or unwillingness or lack of interest in food safety and consumer safety.
7.45 pm
Local authorities start from a low level of resources to implement the Bill. It is, therefore, vital—if the Government are serious—that they should give a categorical assurance about the level of funding and how that funding will be ring fenced to ensure that the money is used for the purposes set out in the Bill. It would be tragic indeed if local authorities were allocated resources to implement the requirements of the Bill, but, because of pressures on local government resources, the money was used for another purpose and the Bill was not implemented. We cannot allow that to happen, given public attitudes towards food safety. The public will not expect the dragging of feet in the House or at local government level in protection of the production and sale of food.
The Select Committees on Agriculture and on Social Services have considered the implementation of a large number of recommendations to prevent listeria in large supermarkets and small corner shops. The implementation of those recommendations, if approved by the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will mean that local authorities need substantial additional resources. They will need officers and training to implement those changes. Therefore, the Minister must give a clear undertaking that, in discussions about allocating resources for next year, some money will be set aside specifically for the implementation of the legislation. The Government must take adequate measures to ensure


that new money is provided and that that money is clearly identified or ring fenced to ensure that it is spent on food safety.
I have served on a local authority finance committee and I understand only too well the ability of local authorities—under pressure or otherwise—to change heads of expenditure and to spend resources on other services than those to which they were allocated. We have to ensure that lack of resources due to poll tax capping or the level of poll tax do not force local authorities to spend the money on other services to the detriment of food safety.
The Minister owes it to the House to ensure that new money is provided by the Department of the Environment and that local authorities do not use it to reduce their overall expenditure. The Government must ensure that the legislation is seen as a new and welcome approach to food safety and that local authorities have the resources to get on with the job in the way in which consumers would wish.

Mr. Tony Speller: I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I come from a catering background and I suspect that, despite his connection with Heinz, he does not. Our greatest problem is not to provide lots of money; that is not the answer. Lots of training is the answer. Much holiday catering is done by casual labour and much of the damage is caused through infection by casual labour.
It is fine to talk about laboratories, as new clause 2 does. There are normally adequate laboratory facilities, but we do not have trained and qualified staff. If we are to look for money from the Government, we should first seek a way in which we can train the staff, especially the casual staff, and we should provide a form of certificate of hygiene in food. That would be a step forward.
A greater step forward would be to train the housewife because most damage to health occurs in the home.

Mr. McCartney: For the record, I inform the hon. Gentleman that I have a catering background. At 15, I was trained at the merchant navy national sea training college as a chef. I went to sea and then worked in the hotel trade for several years. I was so poorly paid and exploited by Tory employers that I got out and became a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Speller: That is a fascinating coincidence. I started my training as a commis chef. The pay of a commis chef and then a commis waiter was probably rather lower than the pay of those in the merchant navy, who are not badly paid on the whole.
We need assistance to ensure that the people who do the casual work are properly trained. In London and in the provinces there are many who take up a job for a few days. Within a couple of years, they should not be able to take up those jobs without the certificate of basic food hygiene.
The events of the past few weeks show that we can do things without cash. I have been chairing a working committee of the Mobile and Outside Caterers Association and the environmental health officers. They have been trying to draw up a checklist. Catering for a function is a bit like an airline's job. On an aeroplane, it is the engineer's job to check out the aeroplane and the pilot's job to fly it. They are not contrary to each other. Too often, people assume that the environmental officer is in some way the enemy of the caterer—or vice versa.
I wholly support the Bill, which seeks to bring together all the strands so that we have cleaner and better-presented food. There are a million and one points that I could mention. One can observe outside a supermarket the family collecting the frozen food. It goes into the back of the hot estate wagon and is at a nice boiling temperature by the time it is put back into a freezer cabinet. Training and education will help us far more than vast quantities of money. Money does not solve anything; the application of training might.

Mr. Maclean: New clause 2 would place several requirements on Ministers which are unnecessary and would add nothing worth while to our present system. We have already consulted local authority organisations at some length on resources. Following those consultations, we derived the figure of £30 million as being the annual sum that food authorities would need to carry out the extra tasks that would follow from the Bill. That took account of staffing needs, training, the impact of the Bill and the EC official control of foodstuffs directive.
It was noticeable that from the day that we unveiled the Bill and the notice in the Bill that we would provide an extra £30 million, which rather shot the Opposition's fox because they believed that we would not make available that large extra sum, they have been trying to undermine the favourable reception for the additional funding by suggesting that local authorities will receive far less than that. That is not so. Central Government will provide an extra £30 million for food law enforcement. As has already been pointed out many times, local authority financing is complicated. However, it will be understood from the start of negotiations on the 1991–92 revenue support grant settlements in the autumn that the whole £30 million will be paid by central Government.
We shall also be able to take account of changing circumstances. In the Bill, we have provided for consultation on all the regulation-making powers likely to have a financial impact on local authorities. Local authority associations will thus have a formal opportunity to comment on our detailed proposals. We shall listen carefully to what they have to say on all aspects of the regulations. What is more, the local authority associations can make representations in the normal way in the extensive discussions on spending that we hold each year, culminating in the annual meeting between the associations and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that local authorities were under no obligation to enforce food law and he asked what would happen if they did not. Local authorities have the duty to enforce food law under clause 6(2). There will be codes of practice to assist them in prioritising their work. There are also default powers which will enable the Government to step in and send the bill to the local authority concerned. Our aim, of course, will be not to have to use those powers, but they are contained in clause 43 to be used if necessary.
Ultimately, we need a system that leaves it to local authorities to allocate resources, both from central Government and raised locally, in the right way for then. area. If it is now Labour party policy, as espoused by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), that we should ring-fence the money and dictate to local authorities how they should spend it, we shall take that as an interesting change in policy. The local authorities will


be interested if it is the new Labour party strategy to dictate to them how they shall spend the money in their local areas.

Mr. McCartney: I am surprised that the Minister is not up to date on the issue of ring fencing. It is a method of ensuring that local authorities implement new measures. That idea won the approval of the Select Committees on Agriculture and on Social Services earlier this year, and it was supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and by the local authority associations. The Government give on the one hand in speeches here and take away with the other hand at meetings at the Department of the Environment. The Minister will have to come up with some better arguments to ensure that my local authority will receive some new money from the Government to enforce food safety legislation.

Mr. Maclean: We have made the point time and again that the £30 million is new money and that it will be paid by central Government. I am merely making the observation—which is interesting to my hon. Friends—that Labour party policy seems to have moved considerably if it is now the view of Labour Members that central Government must dictate to local authorities the areas in which they must spend their money.
We do not intend to dictate to local authorities exactly what they should spend on enforcing food legislation. Local authorities will be duty bound to enforce the law and we shall give them some guidance through codes of practice. I am sure that the House will agree—I invite Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to agree—that each authority must spend what it believes is right in its own area.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I agree with the Minister's view on not dictating what local authorities must spend. The Liberal Democrats have always taken that view on local discretion and accountability to the local community. But is the Minister prepared to publish, for the aid of those local communities and of the House, the detailed assumptions on which the figure of £30 million is based in terms of staffing needs and other costs associated with these measures?

Mr. Maclean: No. I have said repeatedly that, having had discussions with some local authorities and their associations, we made a calculation. We stand by the £30 million as being adequate for the new and extra tasks that the Food Safety Bill will impose. I cannot say at this stage—it is not up to me—how the money will be distributed. The allocations to individual authorities will be made some months from now after the usual consultations with local authority associations. Let me repeat—I hope for the final time—that the whole of the £30 million will be paid by central Government.
Having made that point clear, I hope that I have also made it clear that we are in the business of listening to what the local authorities have to say. I emphasise that £30 million is a significant sum both in absolute terms and in relation to the present sum spent on food safety and food enforcement. It is generally recognised by many outside the House—certainly outside the Labour party—that that sum represents a good response by the Government. Moreover, the Audit Commission is undertaking a study

on food law enforcement and especially on how the law is enforced by environmental health officers and it may make recommendations on the more effective use of resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) cannot fail to have noticed the consultation document issued by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health which deals with all aspects of training. I hope that, before the closing date at the end of this month, either as an individual or on behalf of many of the organisations to which he may talk, he will make representations to the Department of Health on what training is necessary. I also hope that, in the circumstances and in view of the explanation that I have given, the hon. Member for Caerphilly will feel that he can withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am not sure whether I am overwhelmed by the Minister's argument, but I am grateful that, at last, we have flushed out from him a firm promise on the £30 million in this brief debate. I am grateful, too, that he has at last given an undertaking to enter into meaningful consultation with local authorities. He will understand that we shall be in contact with them. In the light of those two little bits of good news, if not concessions, we shall not press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

LICENSING OF CERTAIN PREMISES

'.—(1) This section shall have effect for securing the licensing of certain premises used for the purposes of a food business by means of regulations under section 20(1)(b).

(2) The Ministers shall make regulations under section 20(I)(b) in respect of premises in which food is prepared by the processes of pre-cooked chilled products, low-acid canning, aseptic packaging and vacuum packaging.'.—[Dr. David Clark.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Dr. David Clark.]

8 pm

Mr. Martlew: New clause 5 would strengthen the Bill by providing a licensing system that will ensure that certain food premises where various food processes are conducted are licensed and not registered. The Government propose to introduce a register, which would be excessively bureaucratic and take considerable time to compile and would require considerable finance to maintain. Such a register would do little to stem the tide—the epidemic—of food poisoning that is sweeping the country. The word "epidemic" is not mine; it was used by the chief medical officer of health—Ministers are always quoting the chief medical officer of health—who told the Select Committee's salmonella inquiry that an epidemic of food poisoning was sweeping the country.
The Government's answer to that problem is a registration scheme that will do nothing to improve minimum standards or ensure that the owners of premises are trained or experienced. Environmental health officers will not prosecute people who are not registered. They will find someone who is not registered and say, "You are not registered, so go along and register." If environmental health departments decide to prosecute, they will be accused of being petty. They will go to a magistrate, and


he will ask, "What laws have been broken?" They will say, "He refuses to register." He will ask, "Has he corrected that?" They will say, "Yes." The magistrate will then give an absolute discharge and tell the environmental health people not to come back with such trivial matters.
Registration reminds me of the ribbon around an expensive Easter egg—it is there for effect. When one eats the egg, one finds that the ribbon adds nothing to the taste. At the end of the day, the ribbon ends up in the bin. All that adds to the cost of the egg. It is very much like the Government's Green Paper on protecting the consumer—many words but not much action. That criticism could be made of the Food Safety Bill.
I should like to quote—or misquote—George Bush, the American President. During the presidential elections, referring to the policies of Michael Dukakis, he asked, "Where's the beef?"—I suspect that, if he were in Britain in 1990, he would have found another phrase. What he meant was, "Where's the substance in the policies?" There is no substance in the registration of food premises, but there would be great substance in a licensing scheme. That is the view not only of the Labour party but of the Consumers Association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. It is also the view of a scientist—Sir Mark Richmond, the Government's appointed chairman of the committee on microbiological safety of food. In a letter dated 24 August 1989 to the present Minister—he is always saying that he has just come to the Department, so bovine spongiform encephalopathy has nothing to do with him—he said that at least all catering establishments, processing of pre-cooked chilled products, low acid canning, butchery and meat processing and vacuum packing should be licensed.
What did the Government do? They completely ignored that advice. Less than a fortnight ago, the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee and said, "I should like to cull calves, but my advisers say that we should not do that. I should like to carry out research, but my scientists advise me that it is not necessary." His chief scientist, Sir Mark Richmond, advised him to introduce licensing. For one reason or another, the Minister decided to kick out that advice. We suspect that the food processing industry has put pressure on the Government. That reason alone has prevented the introduction of licensing.
We do not have licensing because the Minister has said that it is bureaucratic and not practical. However, we have licensing systems. For example, betting shops, cinemas and theatres are licensed.

Mr. Ron Davies: And public houses.

Mr. Martlew: When we talk about licensed premises, we normally talk about public houses. Since the Ale House Act 1928, we have had licensed public houses. It is not a simple matter of going to a local council and getting a licence. The process is complicated, but it works successfully. I have not heard any Minister say that public houses should not be licensed. A person who wishes to obtain a licence applies to magistrates and submits a plan of the public house. The magistrates then decide to have a site visit to examine the premises and determine whether it is fit for the consumption of alcohol.
The licensee is brought to court and questioned. He is asked, among other things, "What training, qualifications and experience do you have to he granted a licence to run

a public house or a restaurant?" It is ironic that the Government are concerned about public houses. When it comes to selling alcoholic beverages to get people drunk, premises must be licensed, but when it comes to selling people food that can poison or kill them, all that is needed is a register. There is no common sense in that policy.
We have the remnants of Thatcherism. Common sense says that we should have a licensing system, but all we have is the old policy of "Get the bureaucrats off the back of business and let the free market go forth and prosper". Ironically, all the markets in this country are also licensed. However, the free market, when it comes to food processing and the sale of food, kills people. That is why I hope that we can have a positive response from the Minister.
I suspect that there is a leeway in the Bill for the introduction of licensing. If this Government do not introduce licensing, the next Labour Government will look seriously at it so that people can be protected against those who are concerned only with making profits. That does not apply to the majority of people who sell food, but it certainly applies to the minority who cause the problems.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say that the Government have been convinced and that they will change their policies. If they do not, a Labour Government will give the matter serious consideration. We should be grateful to this Government for giving us the means of implementing a licensing system.

Mr. Dorrell: I believe that this is the first occasion on which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench for his party. I welcome him to his new responsibilities. Although I did not find his argument persuasive, I hope that this will be the first of many occasions on which he speaks from that Dispatch Box.
The hon. Gentleman began by suggesting that registration is too bureaucratic. He supported that assertion by suggesting that environmental health officers would not be able to initiate prosecutions for non-registration. That power exists, but I hope that there will be relatively few prosecutions for non-registration. The hon. Gentleman's argument missed the point about the purpose of registration. Registration itself is not part of an enforcement mechanism. It is the machinery for giving sufficient information to the environmental health department of the enforcement agency to allow it to use the other powers of the Bill effectively and to reinforce its provisions. Registration is explicitly part of the light regulatory regime that we are seeking to introduce, which would be effective but no more heavy-handed in arty individual case than is specifically necessary to achieve the objective.
I am pleased that today I have been able further to elaborate the registration scheme that we propose because today I have published the draft registration form, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. It is a straightforward form that contains only eight questions. It should therefore be quick to complete.
A key section of the form asks businesses to state the type of business that is carried out on the premises. Businesses are divided into three main groups—catering premises, retail premises and food manufacturing premises. The heading "food manufacturing premises" is subdivided to highlight certain processes, including the


four processes that are identified in the new clause. Any food business will have the right to register, and the process of registration will not be subject to a charge.
Registration will enable local authorities more easily to identify the types of food premises within their boundaries and will consequently enable them to target their enforcement action more effectively. Enforcement officers will have a range of powers—inspection; seizure; the issue of improvement notices, prohibition orders and emergency prohibition notices; and prosecution. Ministers will have the power to make emergency control orders. We believe that registration backed by that panoply of powers, which are the effective machinery of enforcement, will be a simple but effective way of ensuring good standards of hygiene throughout the food industry.
The new clause suggests that we should license the premises used for the four processes that are quoted in the new clause. The hon. Member for Carlisle prayed in aid the report of the Richmond committee and suggested that it endorsed his argument. That is not strictly true. The Richmond committee suggested that the process—not the premises—should be licensed.
However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Government are taking the power that is contained within the Bill to do what he proposes, should the need arise. I do not believe that the need will arise, but I prefer the way that we are advocating because it is much more flexible than his suggestions. There is already the longstop that the hon. Gentleman wants, because we can invoke that power. However, I do not believe that it will be necessary. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 6

FOOD LABELLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

'.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Food Labelling Advisory Committee ("the Committee") to perform the functions assigned to the Committee by or under this section.

(2) The members of the Committee, of whom there shall be not less than eight, shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate.

(3) The Committee shall give to the Minister advice on matters relating to the implementation of this section or the exercise of any power conferred by it, or otherwise relating to food labelling, where the Committee consider it expedient, or they are requested by the Minister to do so.

(4) The Committee shall have a duty to identify labelling descriptions which are misleading and shall have a duty to propose to the Minister alternative descriptions.

(5) The functions of the Food Advisory Committee in respect of food labelling and compositional standards shall be transferred to the Committee from the first day this Act comes into force.'.—[Mr. Matthew Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 32, in clause 8, page 6, line 19 at end insert—
'(d) it is not reasonably safe, having regard to all the circumstances, including the manner in which, and the

purposes for which, the food is being marketed, the composition of the food, the use of any mark in relation to food and any instructions or warnings which are given with respect to the keeping, use of or consumption of the food.'.
No. 33, in clause 17, page 14, line 28 at end insert—
'In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Ministers shall take all necessary steps to ensure that milk collected from cows which have been subject to injection with bovine somatotrophin shall be labelled as such.'.

Mr. Taylor: New clause 6 proposes a food labelling advisory committee as opposed to what happens at present, when labelling matters come within the remit of the much more general Food Advisory Committee. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will be aware that Liberal Democrats have taken a particular interest throughout in the issue of food labelling. The new clause is an attempt to put that issue back on the agenda today and to move forward from what we believe to be a weak position for a Government who, in other respects, have accepted the argument that the consumer should have elements of choice. That choice could come with accurate and proper labelling. Labelling should not only be accurate in scientific terms, but should be capable of being readily understood by consumers when they are making their purchases. The anomalies and the misleading labelling that exists at the moment—and which is allowed—demonstrates that the Government and the Food Advisory Committee have failed in the job of providing the consumer with that service.
We need a separate body specifically dedicated to labelling. As one example of the areas in which improved labelling would be appropriate, the amendments would allow the labelling of mechanically recovered meat. That would enable consumers to make a distinction between artificial and natural ingredients.
Throughout the Bill's passage, I have repeatedly used the example of yoghurts that are labelled "strawberry flavour" as opposed to those that are labelled "strawberry-flavoured". To most people in the shops, that does not seem a distinction of great relevance, but it distinguishes between artificial ingredients and natural ingredients, such as real strawberries in the product.
I refer also to the distinction between "battery eggs" and "farm fresh eggs". In fact, there is no distinction, but a consumer who does not want to buy eggs produced from battery hens will not be aware of that fact. Frankly, the egg producers would use the description "battery eggs" rather than "farm fresh eggs" if they thought that the consumer would not react badly to the term "battery eggs". Producers use the term "farm fresh eggs" precisely because of the images that that conjures up in consumers' minds. That image is wholly wrong but the description helps to sell the eggs.
We want to ensure that "Cape" produce bears the words "South Africa". To many consumers, "Cape" produce and South African produce are different kettles of fish. Hon. Members may or may not feel that people should buy goods from South Africa, but some consumers may not want to buy South African goods and it may not occur to them that South African produce is labelled "Cape".
We also want to replace the word "tenderised" when that refers to the fact that the animal has been injected with a vegetable enzyme. That is not what one thinks of when one sees a product labelled "tenderised". When a cookery book states, "Tenderise your meat", it is not envisaged


that the housewife will get out a hypodermic needle and inject the meat. The cookery book means that the meat should be bashed with a hammer.
Those are all examples of the way in which the present labelling system fails to give consumers what they think they are getting. In this respect, information is power and ignorance is impotence. It is high time that the Government did something about it.
Amendment No. 32 has received the strong backing of the Consumers Association. It is designed to ensure that the Bill includes a general safety clause and to make it an offence to sell food that fails to comply with the food safety requirements. We believe that being legally accountable for the safety of the food that they sell will make suppliers more careful about what they buy and how they store and display it. Although the proposed safety requirements are a considerable improvement on the present legislation—I do not take that away from the Government—they still do not meet the standards of other consumer protection legislation. The draft EC product safety directive, for example, which covers food, contains a much more wide-ranging safety duty that takes account of the
intended use, consumption, packaging, transport and storage of a product, according to normal circumstances".
That is precisely the intention of the amendments.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 imposes a similar general duty of safety, and trading standards officers have used it successfully. It is difficult to see why Ministers argue that such a measure is unusable or inappropriate. Clearly, they believe that it is appropriate in other areas and, indeed, the EEC believes that it is appropriate in food safety. Such a measure is used successfully in other areas.
The catch-all that the amendment would provide will extend all the way along the food chain and cover any loopholes that may emerge in the future. That is particularly important in food safety where technology, as we have already said, is changing rapidly. The provision would ensure that any potential risk presented by the product is appropriately indicated to make the consumer aware of it and allow an individual assessment of its seriousness.
The Government have maintained that such a provision is not necessary. They argue that all eventualities are covered by other, more targeted provisions in the Bill. However, the Consumers Association has identified two examples of loopholes in the Bill as currently drafted. Those loopholes were highlighted during the debate on this issue in the House of Lords. One loophole involves microwave ovens. There has been recent speculation about how effectively microwave cooking kills listeria. Some manufacturers of the ovens have reacted by removing instructions on how to microwave a particular product to heat it up because of worries that listeria might not be entirely eliminated by following the instructions. However, manufacturers provided no warning about goods that people may have cooked by microwave for some years following the users' instructions. To consumers it was the same old product that they had bought many times and heated in the same way. No warning was provided that the product was unsuitable for microwaving. Consumers could be forgiven for expecting to be able to continue to reheat the product in the microwave. The inclusion of a general safety requirement, such as that in the amendments, would require manufacturers to label such products as unsuitable for microwaving.
There is a similar loophole with red kidney beans. We know that there is a problem if the product is not properly cooked and that it can cause quite severe stomach upsets. Indeed, the Government issued prompt advice to the food industry urging it to label products accordingly. However, there is no legal requirement on suppliers to co-operate.
When those examples of loopholes were debated in the House of Lords, the Minister maintained that the addition of a general safety duty was unnecessary. In my view, he failed to give adequate explanation of how the existing provisions would cover the specific problems that had been pointed out. For example, the Minister claimed that the food labelling regulations covered kidney beans. However, beans sold loose are not covered by the regulations and whether pre-packed beans are covered is arguable.
The Minister referred to the provisions of clause 8, which deem food unfit if it has been rendered injurious to health or contaminated. But neither of the examples that I have given would be covered by that. The Minister also referred to the labelling and presentation requirements in clause 15. It covers false or misleading descriptions of food, but neither problem would he covered by it.
The Bill represents the Government's acceptance of the need to take measures to provide the public with general safety. The Ministers argue that the Bill does that. It is clear that the Bill does not do so in all eventualities. A general safety clause would cover all eventualities. Other legislation includes such clauses and I see no realistic or good reason why Ministers should oppose it. I hope that they will take this opportunity to react accordingly.
Amendment No. 33 requires the labelling of milk from cows which have been treated with BST. It does not address the question whether that product should he sold at all. In many respects, the simplest solution would be not to sell it to the public but simply to destroy it. Presently only three sites are testing BST and only 71 cows are involved. If the Government do not wish to pursue that course, at least they should let the consumer know what they are buying, according to exactly the same principle on which the Minister argued in the case of irradiation. He maintained that there was no risk from irradiation but that consumers should be allowed to be aware of what they were buying in order to exercise an informed choice. It is well known that, from the National Farmers Union to the women's institutes, consumers demand that knowledge and the ability to exercise that choice. However, it seems that Ministers are not prepared to give them that choice. Why not? When testing is being carried out at only three sites using only 71 cows, why not collect the milk separately, bottle it separately and label it to see whether people want it or not? [Laughter.]

Mr. Ron Davies: They will not.

Mr. Taylor: I notice Labour Members laughing. I bet my bottom dollar that there would be no buyers for such milk if it were so labelled. That may be why the Government do not want to do so. The thought crossed the mind of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). Perhaps it has crossed the Minister's mind too. We should at least test it. If the Minister thinks that people will want to buy such milk, if is easy enough to test.
The only argument against labelling milk from BST-treated cows is that BST is the same as the natural hormone in cows. People say that one simply adds to the level of hormone in the cow but that in other respects one


cannot tell the injected hormone and the natural hormone apart. The problem with that is, first, that the Government argue that irradiation is safe but that customers must be informed that food is irradiated. That is a right principle and it should apply to BST, too. Secondly, the case that BST is identical to the natural hormone is not proven. On the contrary, the molecular structure is different. On that basis alone, there is reason for caution, quite apart from evidence from Monsanto trials that, for example, cows injected with BST show significant and unnatural increases in the size of the internal organs, especially the heart and the kidneys, that pregnancy rates in BST-treated cows are almost half that in control cows and that the hormone content of BST milk is 26 times higher than that of normal milk. Monsanto's own trials revealed those details. They do not mean that there is necessarily a danger or a risk, but, on the basis of everything that Ministers have said about other matters from BSE to irradiation, surely the consumer should be protected against that risk, particularly while trials are taking place.
The trials happen to be taking place in the west country so I have a particularly strong interest in the matter. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to act to protect and inform the consumer by making labelling a requirement.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I say to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and to the House that instinctively the Labour party is opposed to BST. We have made that clear. Whether this is the right vehicle to express our opposition to it is another matter. The hon. Gentleman would not expect us to go that far.
As this is the only occasion tonight on which I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity—[Interruption.] I am glad that that has given pleasure to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). I am sorry to say that it seems to have given him mere pleasure than his speech gave me. I say that in a spirit of generosity because recently I visited his constituency. I take this opportunity to apologise for not having told him.
I was a member of what was a pleasant Standing Committee because I am a member of the health team. I found myself from time to time opposite the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). I am sure that we all wish him well with his new portfolio. I enjoyed working with him on the Committee dealing with this Bill as well as on the Committee dealing with the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. In that spirit we extend a welcome to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell).
I hope that the hon. Member for Truro will not be too disappointed when I say that, having listened to his speech for the second time, and although I appreciate that there is much to be said for the principles that he expounded, we cannot agree with the details. The principles are well intentioned, but although we support the main objectives of the new clause we have reservations about the details.
Food labelling is an essential part of the safety process and consumers have a right to expect labelling to be clear, accurate and informative. To be fair to food suppliers, such labelling is already provided; there are technical difficulties that the Committee recognised, but I shall not detain the House with them tonight as they are already on record.
8.30 pm
An area of particular concern involves new products and ingredients whose names are less familiar to consumers. The E numbers are used as part of a common EC nomenclature, but they are strange to many consumers. More information on that specific matter would be helpful to shoppers.
The new clause lacks reality because it proposes a specialist food labelling advisory committee. To achieve that would diminish the functions of the Food Advisory Committee, which already does useful work on labelling and compositional standards. We respect the work of the FAC and we do not want its role diminished, but that would follow the acceptance of the new clause.

Mr. Maclean: indicated assent.

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to note that the Minister agrees. I detect that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is a bit worried, but his earlier intervention gave me far more pleasure than any of the speeches I heard from Tory Members in Committee. I hope that we hear a great deal more from my hon. Friend.
It is true that consumers should be more strongly represented on the FAC, but things are changing and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield about that.
Doubtless when responding the Minister will say that the Government consider that the labelling of food is an EC affair and, as such, much of the decision-making about labelling occurs in Brussels. We are not unaware of the requirement for and benefits of common standards for labels, especially with 1992 in mind. Nevertheless, there must be a large consumer input into the regulations and directives from the EC.
The Government must test any proposals for labelling before those who speak for consumers test them, although I accept that the FAC has the expertise. The new consumer working party established belatedly by MAFF means that the shoppers' view will be known before the Council of Ministers decides on such matters.
For the present we prefer to use that which exists rather than to create another body with a limited function.

Mr. Maclean: I shall deal first with amendment No. 32, which I believe is unnecessary and unworkable.
The House accepts that it is vital to ensure that we will always be able to prohibit the sale of unsafe food. I believe that that is already achieved by the three-part food safety requirement set out in clause 8(2). That requirement takes into account all the factors that have a direct effect on the safety of the final food. It makes little sense to say that food fails to comply with food safety requirements if it is not "reasonably safe". That term is extremely subjective and, even without it, it would be difficult to evaluate whether food was safe. Food that is safe to eat now may be harmful if eaten later. People are also different and food that does no harm to one can be extremely dangerous to another.
I believe that we have got the balance right on our food safety requirements. However, should there be some unforeseen turn of events that means that we need additional measures, we have the powers under clause 17 to make specific regulations to deal with the matters precisely mentioned by the amendment. We can regulate on the composition of food and on labelling and require


warnings to be given to consumers. We have the legislative protection to hand if it is needed. The Bill contains broad and flexible powers based on what is good in existing legislation. I would not want the House to accept the amendment.
It is a pleasure for me to meet the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) at the Dispatch Box. He showed his customary kindness and good humour. On this occasion he displayed his excellent wisdom by pointing out that, even if there is merit in amendment No. 33, the Bill is not the vehicle for it. The same goes for some of the other rag-bag matters that the hon. Member for Truro would like to be subject to labels. We dealt with those issues exhaustively in Committee. If it is meritorious to start labelling South African produce, no doubt we shall get a demand from some Opposition Members to start labelling Nicaraguan produce now that that country is no longer controlled by a nasty left-wing regime. That country is now probably persona non grata. Were we to seek to take such action, we should do so after first taking the advice of the Food Advisory Committee. We could make such changes under the labelling regulations and the powers set out in clause 16. I repeat, however, that the Bill is not the vehicle for the personal issues raised by the hon. Member for Truro that he wants to be subject to labelling.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West was right to cast doubt on the new clause and right to support the FAC. It already advises Ministers on matters relating to the composition, labelling and advertising of food and on additives, contaminants and other substances that might be present. It is unnecessary and undesirable to set up a similar but separate body. The FAC has a chairman and 14 members appointed for their personal expertise—they do not represent particular interests. Five of them are from the food manufacturing or retail industry, five have consumer or enforcement expertise and five are from the academic world. The committee reviews and prepares reports on all matters within its terms of reference and it makes recommendations for legislation where necessary. I set great store by the FAC and I hope that it will continue in its work.
I have told the House on many occasions that we have given the FAC a major task to perform in the next few months as it will advise on all aspects of labelling, identify misleading labelling descriptions and propose alternatives. Many of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro are currently under review by the FAC. The comprehensive review of food labelling undertaken by that committee will be first class. It will also take into account changing EC obligations. The hon. Member for Monklands, West was right to point out that we are no longer totally our own master in that respect. We must bear in mind EC decisions.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Truro are unnecessary and unworkable and his new clause undermines the excellent work undertaken by the FAC. We see no need to set up a separate body to deal particularly with food labelling. In common with the hon. Member for Monklands, West, I hope that the House will not want the new clause to be added to the Bill.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 9

DECLARATION OF FEEDINGSTUFFS INGREDIENTS

'For the purpose of protecting and promoting the interests of consumers by means of informing persons in charge of live animals which are food sources from which food in intended to be derived, the Ministers shall by regulations coming into force no later than six months from the day on which this Act is passed provide that compound feedingstuffs may not be marketed unless such particulars as may be prescribed are clearly marked on the packaging or container or on a label attached thereto, including—
(a) the species or category of animal for which the feedingstuff is intended,
(b) directions for the proper use of the feedingstuff,
(c) a declaration listing all of the ingredients in the feedingstuff described by their specific names in descending order by weight,
(d) the energy value of the feedingstuff,
(e) the date of manufacture and minimum storage life of the feedingstuff and
(f) the name and address of the person responsible for the prescribed particulars.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
`(e) fodder or feedingstuffs for animals, birds or fish intended for human consumption'.
No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert
`not intended for human consumption'.
No. 3, in clause 17, page 14, line 10, at end insert
'provided that regulations controlling the presence of substances in food sources shall not permit the presence in fodder or feedingstuffs for animals intended for human consumption of substances not permitted for use in food intended for human consumption'.
No. 4, in clause 17, page 14, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Ministers shall take all necessary actions to ensure that fodder or feedingstuffs for animals intended for human consumption be so labelled as to provide full details of the ingredients and origin of the fodder or feedingstuffs.'.

Mr. Davies: The purpose of the new clause is to make provision in the Bill to require those who are responsible for manufacturing animal feedstuffs to label the contents in a manner that is clearly understood by the purchasers of those foodstuffs.
The House will appreciate the need for the new clause. It is common knowledge that the food industry has been shattered in the last couple of years by two instances of epidemic caused by the consumption by farm animals of contaminated feedstuffs. I refer to salmonella infection in the poultry industry and the current epidemic of BSE An our cattle herd, both arising directly—I believe this is beyond disagreement now—from the consumption of contaminated feedstuffs.
There is no doubt in my mind that beef producers, given the opportunity, would now be feeding their animals nothing but feedstuffs containing vegetable protein. I am equally sure that consumers would be happier if they could purchase beef that had been produced from cattle fed with nothing but vegetable protein. Unfortunately, that cannot be the case because under the present law in Britain cattle can still be fed the rendered remains of pigs and chickens and chicken litter, and various items such as plywood can still be mixed in with cattle feed. I am not sure how a diet of rendered pigs, chicken litter and plywood quite fits in


with the theological menu which the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would have us believe is suitable for vegetarian cows.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has made that point.

Mr. Davies: That may be so. The hon. Lady has just drifted into the Chamber, no doubt having been entertaining herself in the west end. I agree that it is the second time, and if the opportunity arises, I will make the point a third time—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Really!

Mr. Davies: —and if the hon. Lady continues to interrupt me, I will say it a fourth and a fifth time. It is a valuable point. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is unfortunately obsessed with theology and pays too little attention to the proper running of his Ministry—[Interruption.] The natives on the Conservative Benches must learn when they get restless that if they want to dish it out, they must be prepared to take it. I learnt that early in life. I shall be happy to stay for the rest of the night taking what they have to dish out, but I warn them that I shall give it back with interest.
The Minister preaches the virtues of feeding vegetarian cows a diet of vegetable matter. But he presides over a Department which has regulations allowing the rendered remains of pigs, chicken litter and plywood to be fed to cattle. That is a fact—[ Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not like it, I am sorry; I do not like it either. That is why we need the new clause. I hope that they will rise in abundance to support it because, according to a poll in today's issue of Farming News, 82 per cent. of farmers believe there should be a total ban on the inclusion of meat and bone meal in animal rations.
Opposition Members have been calling for that for well over a year. If the Government are not prepared to take that fundamental precautionary step, they should at least ensure that livestock producers have the opportunity to follow their own, more sensible, approach and choose not to feed livestock on rations containing meat and bone meal. It is a fundamental question of choice.
At present, the Government, for all their protestations about consumer sovereignty and the disclosure of information, refuse to take the basic step of requiring the feed compounders to list the ingredients of their rations. The new clause would not require the disclosure of any trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. The exact proportions and nutritional balance of compound feeds, which are the commercially sensitive bits of information, would remain confidential.
But the compounders would have to disclose what is in the feed. To take a topical example, they would have to disclose whether a high protein cake contained entirely vegetable protein or animal protein, too. Why should not the farmer have that information so that he can make a choice, particularly if the Government refuse to do the sensible thing and ban ruminant-derived protein from all animal feed?

Mr. Ashby: Almost all the farmers in my constituency have been crying out for some knowledge of what is in their feedstuff and say that they would not feed their cattle animal products if they knew that feedstuff contained such

products. I would support the new clause but for the fact that I am aware of an EEC directive and believe that it is probably better that the matter is tackled through the European Community. If that were not the case, I would support wholeheartedly what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Davies: That is not much consolation to the beef producers of Scotland, Wales and England, who are seeing the bottom fall out of their market. If the only answer the hon. Gentleman can offer them is, "Hang around for a couple of years and in 1992 we might get some European legislation, and then all will be okay," I suggest he tells that to the farmers in his constituency. They are crying out for action, not in two years' time but in two days' time. That would enable them immediately to take the necessary action themselves. They would be empowered to take action to help resolve the crisis that is afflicting their industry. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but we must act with urgency. There is no time to waste.
The Daily Telegraph said in an interesting article this morning:
Eighty two per cent. of the sample—
conducted for Farming News
said they wanted a compulsory ban on the use of meat and bone meal in all farm livestock rations. These ingredients can still be used in food for pigs and poultry.
It is abundantly clear that farmers have a greater understanding of public susceptibility in these matters than has the Ministry.

Mr. John Greenway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at a meeting in York last week of 300 beef farmers from all over the country, not one was convinced, having listened to the evidence, that there was any scientific backing for what the hon. Gentleman is saying? The animal feed people at the meeting made it clear that, if individual farmers wished to have certain rations taken out of the feed supplied to them, they had only to ask.

Mr. Ashby: Oh?

Mr. Greenway: I was at the meeting.

Mr. Davies: I am enjoying the sight of Conservative Members being almost at each other's throats. I followed with interest what happened at that conference in York. I read the background to it and I appreciate the enthusiasm that existed there. I also know of the enthusiasm on the part of consumers, who are anxious to buy a product in which they have total confidence. Frankly, if we continue feeding chicken litter to cattle and expect to have public confidence in our beef-producing industry, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will have to think again.

Mr. Greenway: Rubbish.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman might think it rubbish. He should rise and defend his position on this. I quoted from a sample of farmers and the view of 82 per cent. of them. A poll in today's issue of Farming News shows that farmers believe that there should be a total ban on the feeding of meat and bone meal. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present about a week ago for the debate on BSE. There may be scientific evidence to suggest that there is nothing demonstrably wrong with the


practice. But that is not the heart of the argument. There may be dangers about which we do not yet know and, anyway, consumers do not like the practice.
If that is not enough, and if the 35 per cent. drop in the British beef market is not enough to convince the hon. Member for Ryedale of the true position, I can only say that I care more for the £250 million interest that the farmers of Wales have in the beef industry. The hon. Gentleman might think it satisfactory to feed chicken litter to cattle, but there are dangers in doing that. For example, an article in the June 1990 issue of Agscene says:
Australian beef producers were shaken in the new year by a mass botulism outbreak among cattle from two feedlots in the Queensland area. 5,000 animals destined for the lucrative Japanese grain-fed beef market have reportedly died after consuming chicken manure mixed in feed causing the fatal attack of food poisoning.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) may say that they do not enjoy the protection of the European Community and that that could not happen in the Community or in Britain. I refer the hon. Gentleman to an article in the Veterinary Record of 27 May 1989. It states:
A major outbreak of type C botulism in cattle has recently been reported from Northern Ireland … Eighty animals from a herd of 150 housed beef cattle were affected and 68 of them died. It was the largest outbreak of bovine botulism recorded in Europe and the first to be caused by feeding ensiled poultry litter to cattle, a practice which is common in Northern Ireland and in many other European countries. In view of the risk of botulism from this feed source, and because of the severity of the outbreak, some additional laboratory findings relating to the incident are presented in this paper and their implications are discussed.
There is no doubt that there is a major problem with our food producing industries. One way to start to restore confidence is to ensure that farmers can buy with certainty products whose labels have a legal basis so that if the farmers wish to produce organically or to give a guarantee that their animals have consumed nothing other than vegetable protein they should he able to do so.
If consumers want to go to the butcher with some certainty that the animals with which he has been supplied have been fed only vegetable protein, they should be entitled to do that. It is wrong for anyone to suggest that those fundamental freedoms in the production and consumption of animal products should not be afforded by legislation. The National Farmers Union endorses that view. Notwithstanding the comments of its president at the conference in York last week, that is now the official view of the union. In correspondence to me on 5 June the union said:
For over a decade the NFU have been calling for an obligation on suppliers of compound feedingstuffs for farm livestock to declare the specific ingredients of those feedingstuffs so that farmers can know more precisely what they are feeding to their animals. We believe that such a requirement is important for the confidence of both farmers as producers of animals for the food chain and for consumers as the farmers' customers".
The Country Landowners Association also contacted me and asked to go on record. It wishes to have its support recorded for the campaign for compulsory labelling of feedstuff ingredients. The association says that fanners and landowners will not be impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West that the United Kingdom can simply wait for the EEC directive on feedingstuffs and should not act before the due date.
The Government have an excellent opportunity to show that they can respond positively to the consumer's

need to know what is in feedstuffs. By accepting the amendment the Government would bring United Kingdom law into line with the objective of the EEC directive. What could be a better position to defend in Europe in view of the situation in the past couple of years when the practices in this country unfortunately brought our agriculture into disrepute?

Mr. A. J. Beith: The four amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends are quite far reaching in their implications because, as well as having labelling requirements a nd requirements that labels should show ingredients and the country of origin, they bring feedingstuffs for animals designed for human consumption into the definition of food within the Bill. That is a radical concept which is worth looking at when one thinks of the objectives that the Government themselves have set and the need to establish the kind of confidence that the industry deserves.
I represent a prime beef-producing area. It is in the interests of farmers in my constituency that standards should be brought up to those that they keep rather than pulled down by the bad practice that occasionally arises. I do not find support for the idea of feeding animal protein to herbivore ruminant animals, nor do I find confidence in the idea that what is unfit for human consumption is somehow fit for consumption by animals which we will eat. Those issues arouse increasing feeling among consumers and increasing recognition by farmers of the need to maintain the high standards to which many work and to which more are beginning to work. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the approach that we have suggested. I hope that he shares our objective.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is a major item of Government policy that the consumer should exercise informed choice. In this case the consumer is the farmer who wants to be able to exercise choice that is informed by accurate labelling of what he is buying. This is in line with mainstream Government policy and I trust that the Government will accept the new clause for which I shall certainly vote.

Mr. Brian Wilson: If the Government refuse to accept the new clause, it will be symptomatic of their whole approach to these matters. They are in the 11th hour, under siege in Europe, with a 35 per cent. reduction in beef sales and are seeing the world caving in around them. If they resist the new clause they will be exhibiting a head-in-the-sand attitude.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has already mentioned representations from the National Farmers Union south of the border and from the Country Landowners Association. I wish to put on record the support of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. In order to answer the points raised against the new clause by Conservative Members, I reiterate that, although the EEC directive has been approved, it does not take effect until January 1991. The Scottish NFU quite specifically addresses that point by saying that under the new clause the opportunity arises to bring forward by 18 months what has already been acknowledged should happen at that time. The union states:
In view of the widespread public concern on this particular issue, the Union would ask you to support this initiative on an issue which is of such importance to producers and consumers alike".


In Scotland the impact is being felt although the herds are almost exclusively free from this affliction. Scottish farmers want the protection of being able to say to the world, "We are doing the most rather than the least"." However, the Government refuse to address that.
The point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is dismissed in the union's letter. The Scottish NFU would not write to every Scottish Member asking us to argue in favour of the new clause if its membership was opposed to it or complacent about it. The Scottish NFU treats it as a matter of urgency because it at least knows what is happening in Europe and in the shops and is aware of the views of its members. The Scottish NFU wants the Government to act. It wants the Government to be seen to be doing the most rather than the least to meet the urgent threat that exists.

Mr. John Greenway: I am sorry about the way that this debate has been conducted because I do not think that there is any difference of opinion in the House about the long-term goal or the need for improved labelling of the ingredients of food rations. Far from helping farmers and beef producers, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) indulged in the continuing scaremongering that is emanating as much from the Opposition as from the British press. That undermines what our beef producers are trying to achieve.
I went to the meeting in York, which is close to my constituency, and listened for three hours to what farmers had to say. The hon. Member for Caerphilly is right. There is widespread concern about the future of agriculture as a consequence of what has been said in the media about BSE. There is no scientific advice to back up much of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Last week, I went to a major feed manufacturer—one of the biggest in the north of England—in my constituency. I discovered that, whereas the Government banned the use of ruminant protein in cattle feeds in 1988, this feed manufacturer voluntarily stopped using it in 1986 in response to requests from farmers. I have spoken to several feed manufacturers today and they have asked me to make it clear that if a farmer is not happy with the food ration, there is an opportunity for him to say that he does not wish certain ingredients in the feed for cattle, pigs or poultry. This is happening more and more often.
We all want to see labelling of foodstuffs, but there is a problem, apart from the need to ensure that any action is on a European Communitywide basis. If there is one lesson that we should learn from what has happened in the past two or three days and our efforts to get the French and German ban on English beef lifted, it is that there are higher standards on husbandry, animal welfare and food hygiene and animal feed hygiene in Britain than on the continent. There is no point in our legislating without bringing the rest of the European Community with us. That is why it is important that we have a European Communitywide arrangement.
My second point has not yet been made. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues at the Ministry will consult widely over the arrangements. There are major difficulties in dealing with some of the matters that have been raised. There is no disagreement on what we wish to see achieved, but when the hon. Member for Caerphilly starts scaremongering, he destroys the British beef farmer.

9 pm

Mr. Maclean: I sympathise with the mood of the House and its wish to ensure that food producers are provided with the detailed information that they need on important inputs such as animal feedingstuffs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) used a good phrase, "informed consumer choice". That appeals to me and to the Government. However, I have made it clear in earlier debates, first, that such matters are properly dealt with in regulations made under the Agriculture Act 1970 rather than in a food Bill dealing with human food, and, secondly, that in this sector, conditions are being introduced for the European Community as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was right to stress that point.
The new clause specifies six categories of information that should be required of feedingstuff manufacturers. For the benefit of the House, I shall set out both existing arrangements and the provision of the recently-approved EC directive. I think that it will be seen that we have either already introduced or are well on the way to introducing practically all the requirements of the new clause.
The first two requirements set out that the species or category of animal for which the feedingstuff is intended should be stated and that directions for the proper use of the feed should be given. Both these matters are existing requirements of the Feedingstuffs Regulations 1988. Further categories of information covered by the new clause are the date of manufacture, the minimum storage life and the details of the person responsible for the accuracy of the information. The present regulations already require the latter to be set down and, while declaration of the date of manufacture and storage life are optional, the recent directive will make it obligatory to supply this information also. In the case of four of the six categories, therefore—categories (a), (b), (e), and (f)—the information sought is either already obligatory or well on the way to being made obligatory.
We are left with ingredient listing and a declaration of energy value, and the latter is difficult and complicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale alluded to that. There is no agreement in the Community on the best approach to the necessary calculations, but I assure the House that the UK is in the forefront of the work that is proceeding and we shall be pressing urgently to continue the work at all speed. However, it would be unrealistic, and I do not want to give the House the impression that it would be possible, to expect that early agreement that would allow for the declaration of energy values on a uniform basis will be achieved.
The essential element, in any case, is ingredient listing. Here a considerable step forward was taken when the new directive was agreed in January. It provides for obligatory listing, either of specific ingredients or of categories of similar ingredients.

Mr. Wilson: We all know about the directive and know that it is taking effect from 1991, but the precise point of organisations such as the National Farmers Union for Scotland, and its English counterpart, getting in touch with Opposition Members is to say that that is not good enough, as there is an 18-month gap. The NFU at least recognises the urgency of the position, having said:
The declaration of ingredients of manufactured livestock feeds has to be made compulsory as soon as possible.


Is the Minister saying that 18 months is "as soon as possible"?

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman knows all about it, why table an amendment to the Bill? This is largely a matter of EC competence, and a matter for the Feedingstuffs Regulations 1988.
As I have said, a considerable step forward was taken when the new directive was agreed in January. It remains for the experts to work out the categories that may be used to draw up the necessary reference list of ingredients that will permit manufacturers to make their declarations on a common basis across the European Community.
The Opposition should appreciate that there is a great deal of complex technical work involved. It is not a matter of sticking the names of half a dozen ingredients on a bag; hundreds of ingredients could be used and named. We must get the definitions correct if the legislation is to mean anything, is to be enforceable, and does not disadvantage Great Britain in relation to other countries.
I can assure the House that, like my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I want to be sure that the work is given the impetus that it deserves. We shall be actively pressing for rapid progress, so that ingredient listing can be introduced as early as possible.
I urge the House not to accept the new clause. Regulations on animal feed are a matter for the Agriculture Act 1986, and we shall use the powers in that Act to implement the labelling requirements in due course. In view of the assurances that I have given tonight, we shall press ahead with the details as soon as possible. This Bill is not an appropriate place for animal-feed labelling regulations—much as we want them—and I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will not press the new clause to a vote.

Mr. Ron Davies: I shall make two brief points. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) thinks that our comments about public confidence in the food industry are equivalent to scaremongering. Opposition Members argued that the Government should ban bovine offals for human consumption nine months before such a ban was introduced. We argued 12 months in advance that 100 per cent. compensation should be given for infected animals. However, despite pressure from Opposition Members, the National Farmers Union and others, the Government took 12 months to be persuaded of the rightness of such a move. I resent the attitude that implies that drawing attention to matters of public concern and pressing the Government to adopt policies to safeguard the public interest is equivalent to scaremongering, and I hope the hon. Member for Ryedale will reconsider his views.
I understand the wisdom of seeking Europewide measures, if only to prevent a recurrence of the practice that, until last month, we were carrying on in our trade with France. I am sure that the Minister is aware that every month we were sending boat loads of meat and bonemeal from this country. That very meat and bonemeal was banned from ruminant feed in this country, but it was being incorporated in the rations being fed to French cattle. Under our trading arrangements with France, there was nothing to prevent the products of those cattle being shipped back to this country. That was happening until last month. That, if anything, demonstrates the need for Europewide action.
Having said that, let me add that the Minister gave a generous—and, I believe, genuine—assurance that he recognises and shares our concern, and intends to treat the matter with urgency. As I take his assurances at their face value, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

INSPECTION AND SEIZURE OF SUSPECTED FOOD

Mr. Gregory: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 7, line 44, after 'value', insert
`and other costs, claims, damages and expenses incurred or suffered by the owner directly'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss Government amendment No. 10.

Mr. Gregory: The House will recall that new clause 7 was withdrawn after a debate in Committee on 3 April. Its purpose was to extend the compensation to businesses whose goods had been wrongly seized. It was rejected by my hon. Friend the Minister on the grounds that companies could complain to the Local Commissioner for Administration, that they could insure themselves against any loss, that any increase in compensation would deter action by local government enforcement officers arid that it would weaken consumer protection. I have carefully considered the arguments, but I do not think they are valid, which is why I have tabled the amendment.
Complaints to the local commissioner can be made only where there is maladministration or where a local authority has acted ultra vires. The amendment addresses costs arising out of genuine mistakes by authorities that are outwith the local commissioner's competence. Insurance for the sort of trade risk dealt with in the amendment is not obtainable, nor is it likely to be. I have carried out a review, in conjunction with the Food and Drink Federation, of the important matter of insurance. It is a new area of risk, falling between liability and business interruption. Insurance cover is not currently available.
Although such cover would be available in principle, in practice it is not attractive. Accordingly, it is the general view of those consulted that it would be difficult to secure that sort of cover, except at a very high and therefore unattractive premium. It may be possible for very large companies to press their insurers to devise a special policy, but that is unlikely to be the case for smaller companies. That view was clearly expressed in letters from the Association of British Insurers and from the Lloyds broker Willis Wrightson. On the important matter of insurance liability, Willis Wrightson said:
We would anticipate that the cost and extent of additional insurance cover is likely to be analogous to the present market for Malicious Product Tamper Cover …since the effect of the two incidents would be similar—adverse publicity, loss of consumer confidence and loss of sales.
In the Malicious Product Tamper market premiums are very high in relation to the limited cover available and therefore many companies do not insure this risk. The effect of a Notice being issued, although later withdrawn, could be particularly damaging to the smaller business who may suffer an irrevocable loss of sales and for whom the cost of insuring such as incident is prohibitive.
I am sure that many hon. Members have such businesses in their constituencies. The letter continued:
In conclusion, if the Bill passes through Parliament in its present form, if a Notice is issued and withdrawn, many


businesses may find themselves with inadequate compensation and unable to purchase adequate insurance cover for this risk.
The highly respected Association of British Insurers was consulted after the Committee stage of the Bill. Its assistant liability and accident manager wrote to the leading trade association, the Food and Drink Federation, saying:
I am not surprised that your members have experienced a lack of enthusiasm from insurers …
Whilst we cannot rule out any of our members providing part or all of the cover in question, or that Lloyds or 'fringe' companies may be a little more positive, it is clear from my enquiries that, in general, company insurers would not wish to offer terms.
Exceptions could be made, however, to substantial and well regarded policyholders but this would be very much for the individual insurer to decide on a case by case basis and would not be generally applied.
Those quotations from a leading Lloyds broker and from the Association of British Insurers show that, having checked the points made in Committee, it is frankly not realistic to insure against that important risk.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To reinforce what my hon. Friend says, even if the damage was directly due to maladministration by a local authority, the local government commissioner's findings are not binding. That is not merely a theoretical consideration; they are often ignored by the local authority against whom a finding of maladministration lies.

Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, in his wisdom, makes that additional point.
I do not believe that the additional compensation being sought would act as a deterrent to enforcement officers. I would be concerned if that were to be the case. If the Government believe that it would, they should be prepared to underwrite the cost of any such additional compensation.
My hon. Friend the Minister has argued, and I accept, that there is a price to be paid for ensuring public safety. However, under the Bill as presently drafted that cost will fall randomly and disproportionately on innocent manufacturers who are unfortunate enough to be the victims of mistakes by enforcement authorities.
Amendment No. 22 would not result in a single penny being paid in compensation to the guilty; it would result only in extra compensation going to innocent companies which have suffered loss directly as a result of wrongful seizure of goods.

Dr. David Clark: Amendment No. 22 and Government amendment No. 10 raise some of the ideological and philosophical aspects of the Bill. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has clearly thought about the matter. I listened to him speak in Committee, and I listened to him carefully again today as he made a reasoned case.
The Opposition considered amendment No. 22 carefully. It caused much anguish. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's words, spoken in a gentle tone, about deterrents to local authorities. The advice that we are getting from local authorities is that the additional compensation would act as a deterrent. Environmental health officers have written to me asking me to support amendment No. 10, not amendment No. 22.
The point was made pertinently this weekend in my constituency in connection with the shellfish scare off the north-east coast of England, with which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was involved. The local authority, South Tyneside metropolitan council, received notices from the Department of Health that some molluscs were incredibly dangerous and should not be eaten, and the appropriate notices were served. Similarly, the Department of Health was concerned—rightly—about the possible health risks from some crustaceans—lobsters, crabs and prawns—and warned the local authority.
Under the current law, the local authority could not take any action, although it may be able to under the new law. For one week, crabs, lobsters and prawns throughout the north-east were withheld voluntarily by the fishermen at some considerable cost to themselves. I say voluntarily because the environmental health officer in my authority said that he could not officially impose any restriction on the sale of those products for the simple reason that he would then be liable to be sued because there was no evidence that there was any contamination in those particular kinds of shellfish—prawns, lobsters and crabs. There is routine testing of the molluscs, but there is no routine testing of crabs and lobsters. That is an example of where the present law is not right and I hope that the future law will be better.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note for the sake of clarification that the lobsters never did pose any danger and that the Ministry has now made clear that lobsters hygienically stored after being caught during that period are now regarded by the Ministry as safe to eat.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman and I have worked on that topic together, and I know that he takes a slightly different view. I think that the Department of Health was right. My feeling is that, if any doubt exists, public health must be the first priority. I personally support the Department of Health in its original decision. The hon. Gentleman is right in his comment about the lobsters, but it is made with the benefit of hindsight. However, I make the point that we have not yet received clarification in respect of crabs. My latest information is that crabs are still banned because there was at least one fairly high reading.
At the same time, I have great sympathy with the fishermen concerned. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will agree that the lesson to be drawn is that the Department of Health was not at fault but the Ministry of Agriculture. Although the Department of Health was responsible for issuing notices and giving advice, the Ministry of Agriculture had the responsibility for making the tests on the shellfish. The confusion that arose between the two Departments was outrageous. I shall indicate the extent of the confusion by quoting verbatim a Department of Health spokesman:
The poison levels are very high. If people eat infected shellfish, they could end up in a large box being carried by six people.
That is a fairly explicit and graphic warning. On the same day, the Ministry of Agriculture said that it was not treating the outbreak as a serious scare. I merely put those two statements to the House. Need I say more?
The Department of Health warned my local authority on Saturday 26 May that lobsters, crabs and prawns could


present a potential health hazard. The Ministry of Agriculture was telling fishermen in my constituency that there was nothing wrong with lobsters, crabs and prawns.

Mr. Dorrell: indicated dissent.

Dr. Clark: That is what was said. The Ministers may deny that, and they may deny the official statements from the two Departments concerned as well. However, if they check, they will be able to confirm my claim. The statement from the Department of Health is even pinned up on the wall of the press office there because they are so proud of it, it was so clear—and I think that it was a particularly good statement.
Although my local authority, through the generosity of the fishermen, had samples of lobsters, crabs and prawns available, it was told by the Ministry of Agriculture that those samples could not be sent to Weymouth to be analysed because it was a bank holiday. They could not be despatched until the 6 o'clock train from Newcastle station by Red Star the following Tuesday. Here we are, talking about a matter of life and death, as the Department of Health acknowledged, yet there was no means of transporting samples from Newcastle to Weymouth because it was a bank holiday. It was farcical. It is about time that the Government got their act together.
Worse still, the Ministry of Agriculture told my local authority that, if the samples were received by Tuesday, as they were, it could have the results the following day and then clarify the position with the local fishermen. However, although the results of the test were given to the press on Thursday night, they were not received by my local authority until 14.18 hours on the Friday. For seven working days, although samples were available, there were no results of tests to be had. The fishermen, who voluntarily withheld their stocks, lost a considerable sum of money.
I accept that the Department of Health's action was right, but when there are mix-ups of the kind I have described, and when two Departments work at odds with each other, there is an incredibly strong argument for ex gratia payments. I hope that the Government will examine that aspect.
I laboured that point, and went through it in some detail because it highlights the sort of difficulty that the hon. Member for York put forward, but there are better ways of tackling the problem than the way that he is suggesting.
I am sometimes accused by the Government and Conservative Members of not always seeing eye to eye with the Government. That is no surprise.
We considered how the new arrangements would operate if there was a serious food scare, such as Chernobyl. It is clear that if clause 14 had been operative in 1986, we would not have had any restricted areas after the Chernobyl incident and that would have been a mistake.
My judgment and that of the Labour party is that, after reflection, the insertion of clause 14 in the other place was a mistake. I say unequivocally that we feel that the Government are right to seek to withdraw the clause. We shall support the Government on amendment 10. It is sensible and it puts the balance where it belongs—on the side of public health—and we support that.

Mr. Gill: In supporting amendment No. 22, 1 must declare an interest in the food industry. My hon. Friend

will be aware of the serious concern in the food and farming industries that clause 14 should remain part of the Bill. It was inserted with all-party support in the other place, and has one straightforward principle—when the Government impose emergency restrictions to protect the public from a food or health hazard, any person who can subsequently show that their products were not affected by pollution or contamination should be compensated in respect of losses caused by emergency restrictions.
A recent example is the case of contaminated cattle feed. A number of farmers are likely to have suffered losses as a result of restrictions placed on them by Government emergency orders, yet can show that they were not in receipt of any of the contaminated feed.
I am not saying that the Government should be inhibited in any way from making full use of emergency powers to protect public interest. My concern is to protect the interests of those persons who inevitably get hurt in emergencies, but who subsequently are unable to establish a legal claim to recover their losses.
Clause 14 is all about compensation for producers and processors who may suffer losses as a result of Government emergency action to protect food safety. It would require the Government to pay compensation to a producer who could demonstrate to a justice of the peace that he had been incorrectly included in Government emergency action to protect food safety, and had suffered losses as a result.
Clause 14 is intended to ensure that Government powers are accompanied by Government responsibility in cases in which it is established after the event that action has extended to persons unconnected with any public health risk. For example, the Government may throw down a blanket of emergency action, much wider than sources of health risk, and in the process smother businesses totally unrelated to the risk. Such businesses should be entitled to compensation.
As it stands, the Bill makes provision for compensation for any depreciation in the value of food wrongly seized, but makes no allowance for any additional cost that a company might incur to replace the consignment seized. If food with a long shelf life is wrongly seized, the company may receive no compensation because no depreciation is allowed, but could incur substantial extra costs fulfilling an important order. It could have a major impact on businesses which, due to the seizure of the goods, would be unable to fulfill an export contract which might have been put against specific letters of credit. The company would not only lose the value of that order, but could sustain significant damage to longer term sales development in the fiercely competitive international food market. A similar situation applies in the domestic market, where retail and domestic customers require continuity. In many instances stocks could be replaced in the short term, due to the required incubation period of some products.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will argue that the industry could take out insurance cover. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has instanced the evidence of the Association of British Insurers which has pointed out that such insurance would be difficult to arrange and extremely expensive. He compared it, appropriately, with trying to purchase malicious product tamper cover.
In summary, I urge my hon. Friend to state clearly that he accepts that it is inherent in the use of emergency powers that innocent parties may suffer irrecoverable


losses, that he is prepared to consider the matter further and does not rule out the possibility of future legislation on the matter and that in the meantime he will look sympathetically at any cases which may arise in the use of emergency powers with a view to making ex gratia payments.

Mr. Beith: concerned to learn that the Government  get rid of clause 14, which was added to the her place. Obviously, there is a case for looking  some aspects of clause 14—the specific way in  of damage is shown and the scope of the clause would extend the scope to cover the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) which arose in the fishing industry during the recent  scare, which still continues, although I hope that the stormy nights will clear the algae completely and will end the red tide and the mussel poisoning for quite some time. On that basis, I am prepared to put up with a couple more stormy nights.
The fishermen did not simply withhold stocks from the market; they saw the market drop severely for some time. It is inevitable that such incidents have a considerable effect on the market. The greatest problem was that the traditional ban on mussels, which occurs when the Government become aware of high toxins in mussels and quite rightly give quick notification, was extended much more widely than usual. It was extended by the Department of Health in quite strict and formal terms to crustaceans such as lobsters, crabs and prawns, although the Ministry had no evidence that there were high levels of toxins in any of those crustaceans. It is still not clear that there were high or dangerous toxins in lobsters, crabs or prawns, but fishermen were unable to market those products although there was no danger to human consumption and the levels of toxins which were found were still within the accepted safety levels. Therefore, there is at least a case to be considered that the advice went far wider than was necessary.
Perhaps the terms of the clause would not cover that, as advice was given on some products that were not covered by formal notices. But the effect is the same and the damage to fishermen's interests was considerable.
When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was unfortunately described as one of the Minister's aides when he appeared in a photograph captioned:
The Agriculture Minister surrounded by his aides",
went to York on Saturday, no doubt he had to answer the question that has been put to me: why is it that, when a Minister makes a statement arid gives a misleading impression of the extent of salmonella in eggs with a disastrous effect  market, the Minister resigns and compensation  producers, but when advice is given which  than appears to have been necessary and  suffer damage to their livelihood no  whatsover is paid and the Government find  inconceivable? I was glad that the clause was raised for discussion tonight because it gives Ministers an opportunity to offer some explanation, as fishermen will look at the Bill and say that we need such provisions and that they should apply in such cases.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That must manifestly be the case because many producers are one-person businesses or very small groups of fishermen with no capital resources to carry them over a week or two to complete loss of income and having to throw away their catches.
Nobody is saying that the Government should be immune from making mistakes. Of course, they could not be. Nor is anybody saying that the Government should not take action to preserve and safeguard public health for fear of making mistakes.
The proposition is different. It is that, because there is bound to be a certain amount of error in safeguarding the public health, the cost of that should fall on the public purse and not on the private resources of the individuals or small groups of producers who are the victims of error.
In putting clause 14 into the Bill, the House of Lords recognised that such a situation exists and that it cries out for remedy. If there were a Government amendment to prescribe a different form of valuation for loss, we should be prepared to consider it on its merits. However, I cannot find on the amendment paper any substitute, but merely a bald removal of clause 14, and that is not acceptable.

Mr. McCartney: For the past two and a half years, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and I have been involved regularly in cross-party matters in relation to consumer safety and to general consumer issues. We have been working with the manufacturers of products in attempting to improve the presentation and quality of materials in products. Where that has not been satisfactory, we have worked with Government Departments to improve the regulation of certain activities to ensure that the consumer is purchasing material that is safe to use.
Amendment No. 22 has been accompanied by a considerable amount of correspondence from those of us who have food producers in our constituencies. One of the biggest food producers in Europe, if not the world—Heinz—has a food processing factory in my constituency. Less than two years ago, the company went through the trauma of malicious tampering with its products. I tend to use the phrase "food terrorism". There was a criminal attempt to extort from that company and others several million pounds. I cannot go into detail about the action taken in case a court case is pending.
The company lost several million pounds of sales. It had to introduce new production techniques and equipment costing millions of pounds. The factory had to provide failsafe measures; it had to introduce new caps for baby food, and new training and security measures for staff in the factory. Even now, all that has not led to a complete restoration of the company's market share for the products involved. Those events led to copycat actions against Heinz and other companies.
I have a great deal of sympathy for those in the industry who argue that when malicious action is taken, whether it is committed for personal gain or through a failure to follow procedures in legislation, there should be some recompense. Such malicious action is light years away from criminal activity and from the activities of professionally trained, well-organised members of staff who are promoting food safety work, such as environmental health officers and members of professional associations. I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for York said about what can happen as a result of criminal activity and about what can happen when a


Government have to take emergency action and, in doing so, catch in the net people who were not involved. However, that is dealt with under clause 14.
Amendment No. 22 deals with attempts by local authority officers to maintain the highest possible standards of inspection and, when necessary, to seize food that is suspected of being unfit for human consumption. Local health authority officers will be involved in two types of activities, one of which relates to tinned and non-perishable goods. An officer must prove that there is good cause for the action that he is taking and give positive proof that there is a danger to the public. When there is positive proof, it is important that he tries to obtain the voluntary withholding of goods until further action is taken to prove whether the goods pose a danger to public health.
However, matters are more difficult when it comes to fresh and perishable goods. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, when action is taken in relation to tinned foods there is not the same loss if a product is found to be safe at a later date, because tinned food is not perishable. With fresh and perishable foods, as the hon. Member for York said, if an officer's decision is proved to be wrong, manufacturers may attempt to seek compensation. I have worries about the way in which that case has been put forward.
I have always been interested in consumer and food safety, from the point of view not only of consuming food but of the good name of the companies concerned and the dramatic effect on companies if they fail to follow proper failsafe procedures. If a local authority must take action, there will be a consequent effect on the company's good name. If there is any doubt, an officer can take some goods for proper checking, with the consent of the company. Only if a company does not voluntarily take its product off the market should an officer use seizure powers.
Seizure powers are not new to this legislation—they have been available since 1956 under the Food and Drugs Act. I have heard no evidence this evening—perhaps hon. Members who support the amendment can provide it—that, since 1955, local authority officers have misused their powers in such a way that seizures have had adverse effects on companies. I know of no major case in which a local authority had acted irresponsibly or unreasonably in relation to its seizure powers under the 1955 Act to protect the public from exposure to food that was unfit for human consumption. It is up to the hon. Member for York and his colleagues to provide evidence of abuse if I am to have sympathy for their case.
It is important also that good professional officers should endeavour to encourage companies voluntarily to impound products pending further investigation. On the very few occasions that such action must be taken, it is important that officials work with companies on a confidential and voluntary basis to ensure that the local authority's action is prudent and in the interests of consumers and is not detrimental to a company's good name or activities.
In my view, only if a company is unreasonable and refuses to co-operate with the local authority officers should those local authority officers take the powers available to them under the current Act to protect the public. It is vital that local authority officers are not encumbered and that public safety measures should put the public and the consumer first.
Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the views expressed by Conservative Members—and some Opposition Members—I believe that the amendment would be detrimental to the work of those professional public safety officers who do not work in the same way as criminals who attempt to attack companies for their own financial gain. Those public safety officers work with companies every day to try to protect the public from any contaminated food reaching the shelves of our shops. That should be a major priority for those who support the consumers and the companies that sustain employment in our constituencies. The best thing for their future development is public confidence in the products that they produce. That is best achieved by a regular, professional working relationship between the companies and the local authority departments. The amendment does nothing to enhance that relationship. It builds a barrier between us and them on the pretext that local authority health workers are in opposition to the food production companies. That is not my experience, and I do not believe that it is the experience of any hon. Member.

Mr. John Townend: My only connection with the food industry is as a hotelier, but that gives me a vested interest in safe food.
If this debate had taken place three weeks ago, I should not have had the slightest hesitation supporting the Government's proposals to remove clause 14, which was inserted in the other place. However, unlike the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and in support of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) our experience of the way in which the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have over-reacted with regard to toxins caused by algae in mussels has made me come to the conclusion that provisions such as clause 14 are needed to protect farmers, fishermen, traders and even restaurateurs from the overcautiousness and in some cases the misjudgments not only of the Department of Health, but of any other Ministry or public body. In such circumstances, traders, farmers and fishermen have the right to protection.
In my view, the two Ministries went over the top in this case by giving public health warnings not only for mussels, for which I readily accept that there was ample justification and evidence, but for all shellfish, including prawns, lobsters and crabs. They included other shellfish before they had the slightest shred of evidence that those species were affected by toxic levels that would cause poisoning to the public and before tests had been carried out.
That is a dangerous precedent. If we ban food before we have evidence of any danger, the French could—and have—done the same thing. They could ban our food saying, "We think that there is something wrong with it. We do not have any evidence, but we shall ban it until we have proof."
We have had a problem with algae in the north-east for many years, although until recently it has not come as far down as the Humber. I understand from Professor Edwards, who was, I believe, a scientist with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before moving to the. Shellfish Association of Great Britain, that there have. never been any cases of such toxic poisoning from lobsters, prawns or crabs.
The problem has been the enormous amount of publicity on food safety. We have had salmonella and mad cow disease. I think that the Ministry panicked and issued warnings about lobsters and prawns which have subsequently been proved to be completely unnecessary. In such cases, Her Majesty's Government have a moral responsibility to compensate fishermen, traders and restaurateurs who have suffered financially from that overreaction.
We are told that traces of the toxins have been found in a few crabs. Last week, because of the problems of fishermen at Bridlington, I rang the Ministry of Health every day for a daily report. I can confirm one thing that the hon. Member for South Shields said: one does not get far on a bank holiday weekend. It perturbed me that after the bank holiday weekend I tried to get through to the Ministry on Tuesday. There was no reply from the private office. Everyone was on holiday, so I rang the duty officer. I could not get through to the duty officer. I got through to the telephonist who said that there were five calls holding. I said that I would leave my number for him to ring back when he was free. She said that she had instructions not to do that and that the officer could not ring people back. I said, "But I am a Member of Parliament." She said that it made no difference.
If the Government had thought that there was a possibility that for the first time ever the toxin would affect lobsters, crabs and prawns in addition to mussels, they should not have made an announcement but should immediately have taken samples and had them analysed within 24 hours. If they had obtained evidence of a public danger, it would have been right and proper to issue a public warning.
We must be careful that we do not become obsessed with food safety. People have stopped eating beef because of mad cow disease, chickens and eggs because of salmonella, soft cheese because of listeria and now we have a public warning about shellfish. On Saturday night I had a dinner party at which I served scallops and good English roast beef and no one was any the worse for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "So far."]
Every day that I rang the Ministry of Health, it was still testing crabs and still had not found toxin levels above the danger limit. It seems that having made a mistake, the Ministry desperately continued testing more crabs to prove that it was right. I was told by Professor Edwards that 400 crabs were tested and only four or five were found to have a level of toxin. If those figures are wrong, I shall be grateful if the Minister will give the right figures to the House.
The two Ministries have not acted satisfactorily on this matter. It will never come out, but I have the feeling that if it had been left to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food there would have been a warning on mussels and nothing else. I believe that the Department of Health went over the top.
I do not see why the mistakes and overreactions of the Government should be at the expense of my constituents, particularly fishermen. Opposition Members who have fishing constituencies know that fishermen on the north-east coast have had a bad year because the quotas have been reduced. This is the last straw. I believe that there should be some compensation in this case. I hope

that the Government will consider it. The legislation does not exist to deal with that. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the matter would not be covered by the new clause. I shall not support the Government in removing the new clause that was inserted in another place unless they give an undertaking to provide an alternative to it.

Mr. Martlew: I shall be brief. I am always worried when spokesmen on the two Front Benches agree and the Back Benches on the Government side begin to fill up. I can usually smell vested interests and that is the case now. We are having a strange debate. The Government took a decision. I wonder what would have happened if they had decided to say nothing and people had died. I wonder what hon. Members would have said. If one of his constituents had died, I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would have said exactly the opposite of what he said tonight. That is typical of a Liberal. He wants it both ways.

Mr. Beith: Can the hon. Gentleman give a single case of anyone who died as a result of eating lobsters or crabs which had ingested toxins as a result of algal blooms at any time in history?

Mr. Martlew: It obviously makes the hon. Gentleman very bad-tempered. I can give an example of an alternative scenario involving corned beef. It was in Aberdeen. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is being crabby but we shall have to put up with it. Someone said that there was an outbreak of salmonella, but in fact it was typhoid. About 20 people died and the corned beef industry was destroyed for a generation. If action had not been taken on shellfish and people had died, the crab and lobster fishing industry would not have suffered a hiccup; it would have been destroyed. That would have been a crime.
If there was any neglect on the Government's part in not having the tests carried out, the fishermen affected should be compensated, but we must always err on the side of caution to protect the industry in the long term as well to protect the consumer.
People argue that if a mistake is made in the advice given, the private sector should not be expected to pay; rather the public should. I accept that, but the public already pay for the inspection of factories and the tests that are carried out when things go wrong. I believe that the food industry should pay for the inspections carried out on their factories and any illness suffered by the public from their products. Often those companies do not volunteer to pay money to people who have suffered from food poisoning. The argument always seems to be that if it has anything to do with business the public should pay, but when it comes to social security people are expected to manage on what they receive.
I believe that the Government acted in the best interests of the industry in the long term by being cautious. The day that environmental health departments hold back or Ministries delay in case their decision might cost money will be the day we have a tragedy.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I have some difficulty coming down on one side or the other having read all the briefings. I have reached a conclusion, but it has been difficult having heard the arguments on both sides. It is not an easy or simple matter, as one must have already concluded from the speeches of the hon. Member


for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), whose views were diametrically opposed.
On balance, if I were the Minister, I would be seeking to have clause 14 removed from the Bill. In food emergencies the Government are in a no-win situation. The shellfish example demonstrates that. I have a great deal of respect and affection for my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington, but I profoundly disagree with him in this instance.
The Government are often criticised on food matters for not taking a robust enough line. But some hon. Members, regardless of party, may say that they have taken an unnecessarily robust one. On balance, the Government must be able to introduce emergency food measures uninfluenced by whether compensation may have to be paid if they make a mistake. They must act on the advice of their food scientists uninfluenced by how much it will cost the taxpayer to provide compensation. The Government would be thought to be acting in bad faith if they took no action bearing in mind the fact that compensation might follow. Their critics would argue that they had taken no action, not because of bad advice, but because of the possible financial consequences.
Often the necessary action that is taken immediately might, with hindsight, be proved to be more than absolutely necessary. Recently we have been in dispute with our European partners about beef. Our food exporting industry requires and demands that we take action on food safety grounds alone. If clause 14 was in place, that confidence would be undermined. Sometimes action must be taken which, with hindsight, would be excessive, but we must not leave a Minister feeling that he cannot responsibly take a certain course because of the consequences.
If the Government are found to be acting capriciously, that is a matter of maladministration, a matter for the ombudsman and a matter for ex gratia payment. I hope that when he replies, the Minister will say that, should that be the case, ex gratia payment would follow.
Where I part company with what I believe to be the views of the Minister is in his hope that the matter can be covered by insurance. The NFU rightly says——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting the Food Safety [Lords] Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Fallon.]

As amended ( in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Alexander: We understand from the NFU that there is no appropriate compensation against losses of the sort contemplated. The insurance industry says that compensation is possible, but that there would be a very heavy premium. If the NFU recognises the Minister's dilemma, will he, in turn, recognise the NFU's and possibly introduce a fund or scheme which may compensate producers who are in the position that would otherwise be dealt with by clause 14? The producers' campaign must be seriously addressed. Discussions must take place with the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU to resolve the problem. In that light, I shall be supporting the removal of clause 14.

Mr. Dorrell: I have seldom agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) so much as I did when he said that the issues raised by this debate were difficult for the House to decide. The matters which we have been discussing for the past 45 minutes or so raise some difficult and fundamental issues with which I will deal in as orderly a way as possible.
I must at the outset separate the three issues that the House has been addressing in this debate. The first is that raised by the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory)—whether the compensation payable under the terms of clause 9 should be restricted in the way proposed by the draft or whether they should be extended in the way proposed by my hon. Friend. The second issue is whether the Government should be liable for compensation for emergency orders issued under clause 13. The third is the handling of the shellfish issues in the past fortnight.
First, on the two compensation issues, the Government have considered carefully the matters that were raised in Committee. Despite the important arguments that were advanced, we have decided to seek the consent of the House to the Bill as originally drafted and that compensation should, therefore, be limited to the amount by which the food depreciates during the time that it is subject to the order issued by the environmental health officer.
The amendment seeks to extend the scale of compensation payable by allowing the owner of food to claim other costs, damages and expenses incurred directly. The first question raised by that concept is what is covered by the definition of "direct cost." Before coming into the House I was employed in business and was present at many theological debates about the nature of direct cost. To include in a statute the provision that the owner of food should be entitled to compensation based on direct cost raises problems and poses more questions than it answers.
The Bill contains important safeguards about the way in which an environmental health officer should use the powers granted to him by the Bill. The most important of those safeguards is that no action that he can take under clause 9 can be made to stick unless he can convince a justice of the peace to support him within 21 days. If he cannot so convince a JP, compensation under the limited terms provided by the Bill becomes payable. That is an important safeguard.
My hon. Friend the Member for York said that he does not think that the risk of the wider definition of cost would be insurable. The Government have taken advice from the insurance industry and our advice is to the contrary. The insurance industry assures us that in principle these risks are insurable and that the industry is willing to listen to any serious and properly backed proposition which the food industry will make for insuring the wider risk that my hon. Friend seeks to cover.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As a letter read out by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) made clear, what may be available to a very large firm which is already insured, as an extension of that insurance, is wholly different from what may be available to a fisherman or a small group of fishermen who have not been insured for risks of this kind before and are trying to do so per de novo. What is the Government's advice about that? I am not talking about finance.

Mr. Dorrell: I accept the force of my hon. Friend's argument. It is, of course, true that an insurance broker will assess the risk of each proposition that is put to him. No broker can accept on the same terms all risks that are put to him. The advice stands that in principle the risk is insurable. That is the key point that the House should bear in mind.

Mr. Michael Stern: I have an indirect interest in this matter because I am a partner in a firm which has an insurance interest. My hon. Friend says that an insurance broker will quote for a risk. Most insurance brokers can quote for any risk, but they can make sure that no insurance is offered by quoting a premium which makes the risk totally uninsurable. Will my hon. Friend the Minister write to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) giving the range of insurance premiums that have been quoted to him?

Mr. Dorrell: I hesitate to set myself up as a sort of poor man's insurance broker, because I am not sure that that is a proper course of employment for a Minister of the Crown. This is not the only basis on which we are seeking to persuade the House to reject my hon. Friend's amendment. The key point is that this is an insurable risk, but that it would be on different terms for different customers.

Mr. Gregory: My hon. Friend lays great stress on the point that this is an insurable risk. Before coming to the House I was careful to check my sources, the Association of British Insurers and a Lloyd's broker. Will my hon. Friend reveal to the House his sources in the insurance market because they are plainly at variance with the leading insurance association and the Lloyd's broker? This is an uninsurable risk. My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about direct costs. Surely that is a matter not for the House but for the interpretation of the courts.

Mr. Dorrell: The source of our advice on the insurability of risk is members of the council of Lloyd's. I take my hon. Friend's point about the definition of direct cost, which has some force, but before putting it on the statute book the House should consider how easy it would be to apply such a proposition.
It is also right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government are committed to setting up an implementation advisory committee which will be asked to advise on the code of practice for enforcement authorities covering the detention of food. Interested parties will be able to comment on the draft code before it is finalised and the code will cover use of the powers contained in clause 9.
The other issue covered in the debate was whether the Government should be liable to compensate for losses arising as a result of the exercise of their powers under clause 13. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the support that he offered for the Government's central case on this subject, but he also charged that there was confusion between my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as a result of the shellfish incident which started over the bank holiday weekend. I was involved in the consultations over that weekend and the following week. There was no confusion between Departments. Those who attack the way the Departments acted on the grounds of confusion often cannot define whether they want to attack us for

sloth or for being over-zealous. That charge cannot be levelled against my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). He is clear as to why he is unhappy about the way in which the powers were used, as was the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
It may assist our deliberations on these issues if I announce that we are withdrawing our warning against the eating of crabs caught between the Humber and Montrose. This decision has been taken in the light of further extensive tests by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on crabs caught off the coastline from the Humber to Montrose, which have shown in the majority of cases that there is no measurable toxin present. In about 10 per cent. of samples where toxin was found in crab meat, it was at levels that posed no risk to human health. The Department of Health's advice on not eating crab is therefore withdrawn.
Further tests on molluscan shellfish have shown that current levels of toxin are such that the public must, until further notice, continue to refrain from eating them. Consequently, the warning about molluscan shellfish such as mussels, winkles, whelks, oysters and scallops caught between the Humber and Montrose remains.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: What about cockles?

Mr. Dorrell: I think that cockles are covered by the warning. The Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office are continuing to monitor the situation closely and will lift the warning on molluscan shellfish as soon as it is safe to do so.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful for that welcome announcement. Although the Ministry may have acted in good faith in believing that it was prudent to warn against eating all these species, as it is now clear that it was not at any time dangerous to do so, will the Under-Secretary ask the Ministry to consider again the point that the fishermen are making?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed misses the point. When the warning was issued we could not reasonably have reached that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman has asked—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington—why those species were included in the warning. That was because they eat shellfish such as mussels, and could therefore ingest the toxin. We felt that that was the prudent course of action, and was in the interests of the health of the public. Besides, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) pointed out, credibility is in the long-term interest of the industry.
10.15 pm
In the interests of the public, we concluded that it was right to issue warnings covering crustacea, as well as mussels and other shellfish. I ask the House to consider what the attitude of hon. Members and the public would have been if we had later found out that those species contained high toxin levels, and our explanation was that we had not found an example on that bank holiday Saturday. It is well known that crabs and lobsters feed on the species that were the subject of the warning and it would have been irresponsible of the Government not to include those species in the original warning.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Our point is not that the Government acted irresponsibly in being cautious about crabs and lobsters. Opposition Members have made it clear that we accept that the precautionary principle should apply when there is an element of doubt. However, nearly two weeks have passed. Can the Minister confirm that at no time have levels of toxin in crabs been over the danger level in that period? Will he futher confirm that there was a delay of seven days in testing samples of crab meat? On that basis, the fishermen deserve an ex gratia payment.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington have asked about toxin levels in crabs. As the House knows, the safe level—established over many years—is 400 units. Toxin levels of up to 317 units were found in crabs during the testing period in 10 per cent. of the samples taken. In the case of lobsters, toxin levels of up to 227 units were found in 10 per cent. of the samples taken. Both those figures are under 400, but are levels of toxin that could give some cause for concern. After all, no level of toxin is a particularly nutritious food.
Given the background of risk—that those species feed on other species in which very high levels of toxin were found—I feel that the Government have taken the correct decision.

Mr. John Townend: Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will learn from the experience this year, and that, if next year high levels of toxin in mussels again require a public warning, such a warning will not be given for lobsters, prawns and crabs unless tests have been made that show levels of toxin that are dangerous to the public?

Mr. Dorrell: I am happy to give an assurance that Ministers will always try to learn from their experiences. I cannot give a blanket assurance that we will never again issue a warning in similar circumstances against lobsters and crabs, but we shall seek to learn from the experiences of the past fortnight.
Government amendment No. 10 would remove clause 14 from the Bill. There are several reasons for that. First, I ask the House to consider the position in which the Government would be if the Bill were passed unamended. They would be in an extraordinary position: if they issued an order that was ultra vires, no compensation would be payable. It is well known—and has been for many years—that compensation is not payable in those circumstances. If we issued an order beyond our powers, no compensation would be payable. However, if we issued an order within our powers which was later found to be unjustified, compensation would be payable. It is rather odd to pass legislation that puts the Government in a better position if they act beyond their powers than if they act within their powers.
I take seriously the argument that the Bill, if unamended, would be a serious disincentive to action by Ministers. We must preserve the position of Ministers acting when necessary to protect the consumer. One Opposition Member made the rather telling point that we must deal not only with the substance, but with the appearance. If the Government, in a marginal case, did not issue an order, the suspicion could always be roused—even if it were unfounded—that that decision was reached because of the fear of the cost consequences. We must be

clear that no Government would fail to issue an order, which otherwise they should issue, simply because they were concerned about the compensation consequences.
There is a distinction between the obligations of central Government and those of local government in the context of paying compensation. It is already an established precedent under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, where a clear distinction is made. Local authorities are liable to compensation in certain circumstances, but central Government most certainly are not. Furthermore, it is not true to say that there are no existing remedies for innocent parties who suffer loss. It will often be possible to require the person responsible for the  threat which was the cause of the action to pay damages. It is for the courts to decide the extent of liability. Of course, where the Government have made an  error, ex gratia payments to cover losses  those subject to restrictions can be made.
My hon. Friend the Member  asked whether we would be prepared to  under which ex gratia payments could be  ironic that, at that very moment, my right,  the Chief Secretary to the Treasury came  the door behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. I wonder  were he to agree to such a scheme, he might impose a cash limit upon it. I do not think that my hon. Friend's proposal is the right way to deal with ex gratia payments. They need to be dealt with on the merits of each case, without being bound by the rules of a scheme. Government action is also subject both to judicial review and to examination by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration when maladministration is .
I hope that I have advanced arguments that will persuade the House, that it would be wrong to accept amendment No. 22. I hope that the House will feel it appropriate to support Government amendment No. 10, which would eliminate clause 14.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12

EMERGENCY PROHIBITION NOTICES AND ORDERS

Mr. Robert Hicks: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in pagt 10. leave out lines 21 to 25.

Mr. Speaker: With, this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 10, line 27, leave out 'such an officer' and insert
`an authorised officer of an enforcement authority'.
No. 17, in page 10, line 34, at end insert
`and any person to whom such notice is given shall, if he attends before the court or sheriff upon the application, be entitled to be heard and to call witnesses'.

No. 18, in page 10, leave out lines 39 to 43.

No. 19, in page 11, leave out lines 6 to 11.

No. 20, in page 11, line 12, leave out 'emergency prohibition notice or'

No. 21, in page 11 leave out lines 25 to 38.

Mr. Hicks: The atilendment stands in the name of 25 right hon. and hon. Members and -Myself. I declare an interest, in that for the past 15  have acted as the parliamentary adviser to the  Restaurants and Caterers Association. I also  a constituency
in which the tourist  a significant
contribution to the local .
The amendments relate to the proposed procedures outlined in clause 12 for dealing with food business premises if it is suggested that they present an imminent risk of danger to health.
We are all conscious of the need for a high level of food safety and high standards of hygiene. The public demand that and Parliament is right to respond. The small minority of dirty caterers must be eliminated. They endanger the health of the nation and they do their industry no good whatever.
However, I, along with a number of my hon. Friends, question the envisaged change in the procedures which is designed to secure the objectives that we all seek. Under existing legislation, local authority enforcement officers have to obtain a court order before a food business may be closed. That is completely consistent with long-established legal procedures.
However, clause 12 seeks to reverse those procedures. Under the proposals, an enforcement officer may serve an emergency prohibition notice on the proprietor of a food business if he is satisfied that it represents an imminent risk or a danger to health. Subsequently, that officer must apply to the magistrates court within three days for an emergency prohibition order and he must give the proprietor at least one day's notice of his intention to do so. The proprietor will then have the right to appear in court and to call witnesses to contest the application.
I accept that if the enforcement officer does not make the application to the court following the issuing of the initial notice, or if the court refuses to make an order confirming the prohibition notice, the local authority has to compensate the proprietor for any loss that he has sustained as a consequence of complying with the closure notice. But how is the level of that compensation to be determined? It would clearly be inadequate if the figure were simply to be on the basis of loss of earnings during the three days in question. In practice, there could be longer-term losses. If premises have to be closed, there will be adverse local publicity. For example, the enforced closure of, let us say, Stephen's bistro could have long-term effects on that business.
In a parliamentary answer dated 5 April 1990 the Department of Health provided figures which show that over the past decade the percentage of successful prosecutions for breaches of the food hygiene regulations in the hotel and catering industry varied from 94 per cent. in 1980 and 1987–88 to 75 per cent. in 1986–87. Put another way, the average annual rate of unsuccessful prosecutions over the past 10 years had been one in 10 and in 1986–87 it was one in four. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that that gives rise to genuine anxieties and emphasises the need for a second opinion from the magistrates before an establishment may be closed down.
10.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Minister stated that it is his intention to establish an implementation advisory committee on codes of practice designed to produce even standards of enforcement of the Bill's provisions. If he is not prepared this evening to reverse the proposed procedures—and in his letter to me of 3 May my hon. Friend's predecessor as Minister acknowledged that

environmental health officers will be given strong powers, which he described as a very powerful weapon—the role of the advisory committee will become even more critical.
It is essential that there is consistency of application and important that the circumstances in which the powers might be used are clearly and tightly drawn. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me such a reassurance this evening.
My hon. Friend's predecessor also indicated that he would be happy to include the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association in the consultation process for determining the codes of conduct. The association welcomes that, but would feel far more confident if it was represented on the advisory committee itself—as the Institution of Environmental Health Officers will be. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will give that request sympathetic consideration.
All that the amendments would achieve is that the proprietor of a food business will be given an opportunity to present his case to a magistrates court before his business can be closed.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the draconian power included in clause 12 to close a business without reference to the courts. I acknowledge that it is an extremely severe power, and we must ensure, as my hon. Friend said, that it is used only in tightly controlled circumstances.
Under clause 12, an environmental health officer may serve an emergency prohibition notice on the owner of an insanitary food business if it presents an imminent—and that is the key word—risk to health. The prohibition notice takes effect immediately, but the EHO must apply to a magistrates court, or to a sheriff court in Scotland, within three days for an emergency prohibition order, and must give the proprietor one day's notice of his intention to do so.
My hon. Friend's amendment would insist that the environmental health officer applies to the court before the notice comes into effect. I shall seek to explain to the House why that is not the correct way, and why it is important that the power contained in clause 12 proceeds on to the statute book.
If any EHO does not apply to the court within three days the notice lapses, and then the right to compensation arises. If the EHO applies, the proprietor will have the right to appear in court and to call witnesses to contest the application. If the court refuses to make an order confirming the prohibition, the authority is required to pay compensation. If the notice does not for any reason convert itself into an order, the owner of the food business will be entitled to compensation.
My hon. Friend asked how the compensation will be calculated. Clause 12 provides for compensation for "any loss suffered." Any dispute will go to arbitration, and if the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, it will fall to a High Court judge to appoint one under the conditions of the Arbitration Act 1894. The key point is that compensation will be payable if it later transpires that the power was used in circumstances that a court would not support.
The second point to emphasise is that the power is necessary because we are talking only about circumstances where there is an imminent risk to health. Also, in most circumstances, where an environmental health officer believes that there is an imminent risk to health, he will not need to use these powers because experience suggests that


he will be able to get voluntary agreement from the operator of the business. However, occasionally, when the operator of the business will not agree, the EHO must have the power to take the necessary action to close an insanitary business if there is an imminent risk to health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) also asked about the details of the implementation advisory committee, which I referred to in the previous debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) announced on 23 November last year that we would be setting up that committee to advise on statutory codes of practice for enforcement officers, designed to ensure even standards of enforcement throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East has recognised that that committee and the codes of practice that it will issue are very relevant to the proper concerns that owners of food businesses have about the implications of the clause.
The membership of the implementation advisory committee has now been decided, and consists of seven members nominated by local authority associations, two members nominated by the professional organisations most involved, and five representatives from the Government Departments most involved: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and my Department.
My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of representation for people representing the hotel and catering industry, but I think that he will realise from the membership that I have announced that this is an internal committee, within the Government, which will clearly consult widely when exercising its powers. Indeed, it will produce draft codes which will be subject to consultation.
The committee will also consider some issues where input is needed from others who are not full members. In such instances the committee will be able to establish sub-groups to deal with particular issues, and they will be able to co-opt representatives of other organisations where that is appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East also asked about the Committee's terms of reference. They will be to advise the Departments on draft codes of practice to be issued for consultation under section 41 of the Food Safety Bill—covering the execution and enforcement of the Act and regulations and orders made under it.
I hope that on the basis of the wide terms of reference given to the committee, the fact that it will issue codes of practice governing the exercise of powers under clause 12, and the other points that I have made, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Hicks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his response and especially for his helpful remarks about the terms of reference and workings of the implementation advisory committee. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14

COMPLAINTS ABOUT EMERGENCY CONTROL ORDER

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 12, line 25, leave out clause 14.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Clause 19

SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR PARTICULAR FOODS ETC.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 15, line 5, leave out
`or novel food sources'
and insert
',or food sources from which such foods are intended to be derived,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.

Mr. Maclean: This series of amendments clarifies the scope of clause 19. I explained in Committee that we proposed that foods produced by genetic modification should be subject to a positive approval system, based on advice from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, before marketing. I agreed to look at the provisions again.
The amendments will ensure that all foods produced by genetic modification are brought within the scope of clause 19. The amendments specifically provide for regulating the carrying out of commercial operations with such food and I hope that the specific reference to genetic modification on the face of the Bill will be helpful to clarify our intentions.
The House will recall that our announcement in Committee was warmly welcomed by the National Consumer Council, in a press statement from its chairman, Lady Wilcox. It is a sensible series of amendments.

Mr. Morley: I regret that we are discussing such an important issue late at night with little chance to examine the enormous implications of developments on the frontiers of science that affect food and society.
I served on the Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill and the matter was discussed in great detail, although it was allocated insufficient time because of scheduling. The discussion on genetically modified organisms occurred late at night arid there was insufficient time to consider the matter in great depth.
Genetically modified organisms have major implications as well as considerable advantages. Clause 19 provides powers to control the use of food which contains genetically modified organisms or which had been modified. Will the Minister explain how his advisory committee will link in with the proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill? Will he be guided by the release committee? Are the powers in clause 19 fall-back powers to be used as a last-ditch defence, or does he expect the research work and clearance to be covered under the regulations set out in the Environmental Protection Bill?
That raises another question: genetically modified foods may be safe, but are they desirable? Is the Minister confident that such issues are covered by clause 19? Another matter that has been discussed, especially in Europe, involves the so-called fourth hurdle—assessing whether a genetically modified food is safe, meets a particular need and is desirable. We have discussed the way in which BST can increase milk yields, but does society need BST?
One genetically modified food organism has been allowed to go on sale for public use in Britain—genetically modified yeast. I do not doubt that that yeast has undergone the proper vetting procedures and has been considered very carefully, but although it is safe, was that


form of genetically modified yeast needed or desired? I understand that it was designed for the baking industry. I am informed that the industry never made any request that that form of yeast should be accepted.
Genetically modified organisms raise wider issues for the Food Safety Bill and food regulations. For example, work is already being carried out to modify the naturally produced sugar in plants to produce sugar such as high fructose corn syrup which can replace cane sugar in many food processes. That raises the question whether implications on Third world countries and the sugar cane industry should be taken into consideration. I accept that some issues are outside the scope of the Bill, but we have not given them the detailed consideration that they deserve and we should carefully examine all the implications and consequences.
The amendment deals with IVF. The Government included that issue to make it clear that IVF is an accepted practice within the food industry and should not be caught by the new regulations. However, I am sure that the Minister will accept that much of the research into genetically modified organisms is aimed at animal husbandry and the development of particular animals. Animals may be developed that contain genetic modification and there may be artificial insemination with animals that have not. Is the Minister confident that the amendments will cover the use of sperm that has been genetically modified or is from a genetically modified source in IVF? Under the Bill, that may be acceptable. It is important that that is covered in regulations.

Mr. Maclean: I can give the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) the assurances he seeks. He asked whether everything was covered by the amendments. It is because we wanted to ensure that everything was covered that we have brought forward these revisions and improved wording.
There are two parts to the role of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. It is concerned with novel foods—that is, foods not previously consumed here—and with novel food processes and food produced by such processes. Novel foods are covered by clause 19 and we are now making specific provision to ensure that all foods produced by genetic modification are covered by that clause. Processes involving novel processes and the food produced by such processes could be regulated if necessary using the separate powers in clause 17(1) (c) and (f).
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked about our interface with the other committees on genetic modification. I assure him that there is interface and that our provisions slot in nicely with their role. If he wants more detail, I shall be happy to write to him with specific details on how we envisage the way in which the other committees will operate and how they link with the ACNFP.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe also asked me whether sperm would be covered by the group of amendments. Yes, they are. That is a good example of something further back in the chain that is covered.
The one point on which I will not give the hon. Gentleman assurances is on the so-called "fourth hurdle",

and the vague and subjective definition of socio-economic need. The amendments are not concerned with that. The role of ACNFP and the role of the amendments is to ensure that genetically modified organisms that may be a food source are safe. I do not want the role of the ACNFP to change radically to include making distinctions on whether it is socially good or nice for consumers to want to have certain products. It should be left to consumers to decide whether they need or want to use a genetically modified yeast. It is the job of the Government to ensure that it is safe; it is the job of consumers to decide whether they want it. I hope that those reassurances are satisfactory to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 15, line 6, after `regulations', insert—
'(aa) for prohibiting the carrying out of such operations with respect to genetically modified food sources, or foods derived from such food sources, of any class so specified;'.

No. 7, in page 15, line 9, leave out 'either' and insert 'each'.'

No. 8, in page 15, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—
'(4) For the purposes of this section a food source is genetically modified if any of the genes or other genetic material in the food source—
(a) has been modified by means of an artificial technique; or
(b) is inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from genetic material which was so modified;
and in this subsection "artificial technique" does not include any technique which involves no more than, or no more than the assistance of, naturally occurring processes of reproduction (including selective breeding techniques or in vitro fertilisation).'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 29

PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR EXAMINATIONS

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 20, line 26, leave out
'in England and Wales, or a regional or islands'
and insert or a regional'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 31

ANALYSIS ETC. OF SAMPLES

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 21, line 17, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—

'(3) If, in any case where a sample is proposed to be submitted for analysis under this section, the office of public analyst for the area in question is vacant, the sample shall be submitted to the public analyst for some other area.

(4) If, in any case where a sample is proposed to be or is submitted for analysis or examination under this section, the food analyst or examiner determines that he is for any reason unable to perform the analysis or examination, the sample shall be submitted or, as the case may be, sent by him to such other food analyst or examiner as he may determine.

(4A) A food analyst or examiner shall analyse or examine as soon as practicable any sample submitted or sent to him under this section, but may, except where—
(a) he is the public analyst for the area in question; and

No. 13, in page 22, line 9, at end insert—
'and where two or more public analysts are appointed for any area, any reference in this section to the public analyst for that area shall be construed as a reference to either or any of them.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 32

REGULATION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 22, line 12, leave out
`Regulations made under this section'
and insert
'Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection'.

No. 14, in page 22, line 28, after 'examinations',
insert—
`(ff) the circumstances in which a food analyst or examiner is to be precluded, by reason of a conflict of interest, from analysing or examining a particular sample or part of a sample;'.

No. 30, in page 22, line 30, after 'examination', insert '(i)'.

No. 31, in page 22, line 32, at end insert

'or
(ii) to a person determined by or under the regulations."—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Clause 61

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 37, leave out line 26 and insert
`paragraphs 12 to 15 of Schedule 2 and, so far as relating to those paragraphs,'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 4

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 51, line 38, leave out `coming into force' and insert 'commencement'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Order for Third Reading read [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wale's Consent on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall signified.]

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am confident, and I am sure that all hon. Members will be confident, that we now have before us a Bill that will see us well into the next century. It provides us with a strong and flexible framework that will allow us to tackle specific new problems as they arise. Our main objective has been to ensure the safety of food. We have also taken care not to stifle innovation in food or impose needless burdens on the many small businesses in the food chain. The Bill will, however, require industry to look more critically at its operations, with the safety of the consumer in mind. That is in everyone's interests.
The Bill is of great benefit to consumers. We have introduced tougher penalties. We have taken stronger powers. We have powers to detain batches of suspect food for further investigation and to close premises where there is an imminent risk to health. It is a worthy Bill and I commend it to the House.

Dr. David Clark: I had hoped that I would be able fully to endorse everything that the Minister said. However, there was one, I hope, slip of the tongue. In his hyperbole he said that we shall be lifting the burden from small businesses. I make it quite clear that, no matter the size of a business, if public health is at risk——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): indicated assent

Dr.Clark: The Minister is indicating that he is with us.
The Opposition did not vote against the Bill. We had a constructive Committee stage. However, the Bill does not go far enough. As the Minister said, it is an enabling Bill and much progress can be made under it. When we have a labour Government, we shall go even further.

Mr. Cohen: I am sorry to spoil Conservative Members' attempts to get this debate over quickly, but I shall make a couple of important points. The Bill misses many opportunities to protect the consumer—for example, an independent food safety agency and a licensing scheme. My two brief points are about the resources to implement the Bill and the distribution of those resources.
First, the Government claim that they will provide about £30 million of what they call real money to implement the Bill. All the local authority associations have said that they need a minimum of £40 million. I still do not think that the Government have cleared up that point. The money that they will provide could easily be swallowed up in the poll tax mess next year—we have a poll tax mess this year—and not go to environmental health officers to enable them to implement the Bill.
Secondly, local authorities with many food production premises such as restaurants and takeaway establishments should have a higher proportion of the money, but that should not be the only basis on which the money is distributed. It certainly should not be distributed purely on a population basis, which would not take into account the special needs of certain areas. Distribution should be based on deprivation and poverty indicators such as housing, unemployment and other social issues. Those indicators reflect the standard of food premises in an area. I ask the Government to take that matter fully into account. I refer in particular to ethnic minorities and food handlers whose first language is not English. More money must be spent on training and on leaflets in other languages. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Agricultural Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The House will be aware of the illegal ban on British beef exports imposed by France, Germany and Italy, and of the very vigorous response by the Government and the Commission to this unilateral action.
I attended a special meeting of the Council, called at the request of the Commission, to address this intolerable situation which had grave consequences for the Community institutions and their reputation.
The Council met on 6 June to consider advice from the Commission's independent scientific veterinary committee. Mr. MacSharry—the Agriculture Commissioner—stated clearly that this advice, reached unanimously, repeated the committee's earlier judgment that existing Community rules on bovine spongiform encephalopathy fully protected public and animal health. There is therefore no reason to prevent the free circulation of British beef on the basis of the measures already taken by the United Kingdom and the Community.
It was clear from the meeting that some member states were not prepared to stand by the best scientific advice—even when proffered by experts from across the Community. We therefore were faced with a range of trade-distorting and protectionist demands which we discussed throughout Wednesday night and this morning. I am pleased to tell the House that we achieved a successful settlement much to Britain's advantage.
The main features of the settlement are, first, the commitment by all member states to lift at once their import restrictions; secondly, British beef is to be accepted in all markets of the Community and that agreement is to cover calves, carcases, and boneless meat; thirdly, the Commission will take up immediately with third countries the need immediately to remove any trade restrictions that are still in place; and, fourthly, the Commission will take up the case for extending our ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants. The Netherlands has already followed suit. Denmark implements tomorrow and the French have said that they are likely to take a similar step. That is a major change which will defend and protect people's health throughout the Community.
Fifthly, there will be a research programme, which is designed to explore the likelihood of BSE occurring in Community countries other than the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
The Commission has undertaken to extend the coverage of beef intervention in this country. In large measure the export arrangements for British beef remain in place. We shall reinforce our control systems—particularly in the marking of calves. Importers of carcases from the United Kingdom have pointed to the fact that our cutting arrangements are not always duplicated in their plants. They are not therefore able to give the consumer the assurances that we give at home regarding the removal of all specified material. To provide some measure of similar assurance for consumers in other member states, we have agreed not to send bone-in carcases from holdings which have recently had BSE cases.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not that apply to Britain?

Mr. Gummer: There is no limitation of the export of bone-out British beef—[Interruption.]—precisely because Britain is covered by tougher regulations and the British housewife is better protected. The hon. Gentleman's constituents in Bolsover are better protected than people in any other Community country. He should know that and not undermine British beef.
All Community countries now express themselves fully satisfied on the export of British beef. The scientific veterinary commitee has reiterated its clear statement on the safety of British beef. The Commission has wholly vindicated the British position and we have averted an extremely damaging trade dispute—in a matter of a single week. Unilateral action should not have been taken. Tonight that action has been rescinded.

Dr. David Clark: I thank the Minister most sincerely for coming to the House at such a late hour after spending so many hours locked in deadlock in negotiations.
We very much welcome the lifting of the ban on the trade in British cattle, but having listened to the Minister with great care, I thought that he delivered a deliberately carefully constructed statement that concealed more than it revealed—[ Interruption.] When hon. Members have had time to study and assimilate it, they may come to the same conclusion. Therefore, may I ask the Minister several specific questions arising from it and perhaps relating to it? If it was such a successful outcome, why did he spend 26 hours fighting most of the proposals and why did he flatly reject the certification proposals when they were put forward by the Germans six months ago? Why did he say then that they were inoperative and, indeed, unnecessary? We demand, and have a right to, an answer to that point.
Secondly, will he confirm that there remains a total ban on all British cattle over the age of six months to every one of the European member states? Will he also confirm that there is a ban on all calves born of BSE cows to every one of the EEC states? We need to know the answer to that one. Will he also confirm to the House that the result of the triumphal statement that he made is that in effect we have extended the German ban on bone-in beef to every other Community country? I believe that that is the case. Has he assessed the capacity of meat cutting and packaging firms in Britain? Can they cope with all the deboning that will be necessary as a result of the agreement?
Will the Minister clarify another point that worries many people? Both the British and the French housewife will buy beef from British cows, but is there not a distinct difference between what they will buy? Are there not now two markets for British beef in Europe? Will the Minister confirm that following his cave-in today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—beef will be allowed to be sold to the British consumer which cannot be sold to the French consumer? [Interruption.] This is a very serious point and people have the right to know about it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not be interested in what is on offer to their electorates but I certainly am and most Opposition Members are. I repeat the question. Is it true that beef will be sold to the British consumer which it would be illegal to sell to the French consumer? In short, is not the British consumer being treated as a second-rate citizen in that respect?
Finally, we welcome the fact that we have had the ban lifted. Will the Minister accept that he has merely bought breathing space? Will he take a major initiative to reassure the British consumer?

Mr. Donald Thompson: Cheat, cheat, cheat—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Dr. David Clark.

Dr. Clark: It is interesting that when I ask purely factual questions—[ Interruption.] When hon. Gentlemen read Hansard tomorrow they will find that I have not proffered any opinions but merely asked questions. If the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) wants to shout from a sedentary position "Cheat", that is up to him. I know that he is in the butchering industry and that he has a vested interest in that respect. Conservative Members may not be interested in the long-term interests of the beef industry and the consumer, but we are—[ Interruption.] It is important that we save our beef and farming industries.
Will the Minister take some initiatives to get reassurances not only at home but abroad? Will he urge the EC to establish a committee of medical experts to complement that of the veterinarians to examine the human aspects related to beef? [ Laughter.] I wonder why Conservative Members laugh. Are they afraid of the scientific evidence? [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."]
Will the Minister now introduce the random sampling of routinely slaughtered cows to judge the extent of the disease? As part and parcel of that and his certification policy, will he introduce the tagging of cows and herd movement books to assist the tracing of individual animals? If the Minister feels that it is necessary to introduce legislation along the lines of that operating in Northern Ireland—introduced correctly by the Government——

Mr. Roger Gale: Does the hon. Gentleman have a doctorate in defamation? Why does he not stick to subjects of which he has some knowledge?

Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman would care to get up I shall happily give way, but I wish that he would shut up or get out.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I realise, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. The hon. Gentleman must ask his questions to which he will get the answers.

Dr. Clark: It is always a sure sign that the Opposition are rattled—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.

Dr. Clark: With the opinion polls showing Labour 23 per cent. ahead, we all know who will be the Opposition. I should point out that one can have a lower case as well as an upper case "o" with the word opposition.
Sensible arrangements have been introduced in Northern Ireland for the tagging of animals and movement books. Such arrangements are a prerequisite to any system of certification. If the Government feel that it is necessary to introduce such legislation we shall facilitate its movement on to the statute book.
The Minister mentioned scientific knowledge. Is he prepared to make facilities available to all bona fide scientists, at home and overseas, so that they can try to tackle and overcome the serious and dangerous problem of BSE? The first thing that we must aim to do is to eradicate BSE from the British herd. Only then can we restore the full confidence in our beef and cattle industry that we all want.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman began by asking why we had taken 26 hours to achieve this decision. It is because we started with demands which were extremely unacceptable to Britain. The extent of the discussions—I put this in the mildest way I can—was much greater because I constantly had to counter the repeating to me by those with whom I was negotiating the wild statements supported by the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Clark: Name one.

Mr. Gummer: I do not need to repeat them, because the hon. Gentleman repeated a whole range of them during his questions. I will not lower the debate to the kind of party-political debate I have seen on television tonight. Let me make a direct comment to the hon. Gentleman. When we have a solution that is backed by all 12 nations, for the hon. Gentleman to talk about temporary arrangements and about our returning again—in the way he talked on television tonight—can do nothing but undermine the agreement that has been reached by those nations in Brussels after 26 hours of negotiation.
The arrangements are those of the whole of the Community. It is not a special deal with Germany, which is what the Germans were seeking, and that is why it is entirely different. It means that we are selling into Germany beef that we were not able to sell in before. It is wholly wrong to say that this agreement applies only to bone-out beef. That is precisely what was being tried on us, with people pushing for that. In fact, this allows for bone-in beef carcases to spread throughout the Community, including into Germany, where they had been stopped by unilateral action for some months.
The British housewife is protected, and her confidence is supported, much better than is the case in any other country in the European Community, because our cutting arrangements for beef with bones, as well as bone-out beef, make sure that all the specified material is removed. With exported carcases, that cannot be assured in the importing country, so we are giving a secondary assurance that is not as extensive as that which we provide now for the British consumer. Opposition Members who suggest otherwise cannot have the interests of the consumer or of the farming community at heart. I put the consumer first. I wish that Opposition Members would do the same.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to talk about European Community committees, I gladly do so. I have upheld the European specialist committees and fought for them to be upheld, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should still be proposing that I do things that scientific committees in this country and abroad have said we should not do, or have recommended that we should no longer do, because we should use the resources elsewhere. I have told the hon. Gentleman those facts time and again. He still repeats, on television and elsewhere, the statement that he made, and he must be careful lest someone accuses him—though I would never do so—of misleading the British people. I must tell Labour Members that it is


becoming increasingly clear that the interests at their heart are not the interests that we would seek to propose but the interests of party politics.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to put single questions to the Minister, please?

Mr. Andrew Hunter: To an even greater extent—because of the extraordinary and deplorable comments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the congratulations and gratitude of beef farmers in Hampshire and throughout the United Kingdom. I also ask him to pursue further the proposition that his sterling efforts to promote, protect and further the interests of British agriculture have been utterly undermined by the negative and destructive attitude of Labour Members, in this House and in the European Parliament.

Mr. Gummer: It is a pity if we cannot be pleased when we have achieved something that is to the benefit of the British consumer and British farmer. Once upon a time hon. Members on both sides of the House were keen to do that. In any event, let us accept that we have done what we set out to do. The bans are now raised. The Community has solved this problem within a week, whereas in the past it has taken months. Had we gone to court, however quickly it had been done—and the Commission instituted very fast measures—it would have taken much longer. We have come back with the best deal that could be achieved and a deal which is highly satisfactory for the nation.

Mr. Geraint Howells: On this occasion I hold the view that hon. Members on both sides of the House, never mind the party to which they belong, should back the Minister and the Commission to the hilt. I congratulate the Minister on his stand against the Germans and the French. Perhaps many Opposition Members are not aware that the beef industry in Wales is worth £253 million, and that it is also important to England, Scotland and Ireland. Over eight or 10 weeks irresponsible statements have been made by politicians in this country, by a few scientists and by some sections of the media. I hope that after this episode the people who have been responsible for such scaremongering will pull themselves together to safeguard the interests of agriculture and consumers.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, was compensation discussed? Secondly, can he assure our beef producers that exports of beef will be back to normal within the next few weeks?

Mr. Gummer: Certainly, the other countries have accepted that the ban must be raised immediately. I am perfectly prepared to be reasonable about the time at which the messages go out, although I see from the veterinary arrangements of the Federal Republic of Germany that notices to the Lander went out even before the final agreement was reached. That shows that the Federal Republic fulfilled its commitment honourably.
The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation. We were not prepared to discuss that because we were discussing the principle of trade within the Community. There was some attempt by some people to suggest that we

could be bought off, out of the business of trading. That was entirely to try to protect their own farmers. I am not prepared to go in for such discussions and would not countenance them. As I said in my statement, the Commission has agreed to extend the coverage of intervention so that it covers an area which other countries appeared to have and which we have not had up to now in the context of what I understand are referred to as 03 steers. This is not a vast matter, but it is an important matter of fairness and equality which I am pleased we were able to sort out.

Sir Hector Monro: May I add my warmest congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister on his outstanding success in the interests of the consumer and the farmer? Was he able in his long night to cover the issue of the export of live breeding cattle to the continent? The performance of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), has been a disgrace to the nation and has greatly let down the farmer and the consumer.

Mr. Gummer: I believed that we ought to start the negotiations by accepting the scientific veterinary committee's advice, which was almost exactly the advice that it had given to us before on two separate occasions. Therefore, this was not the time to discuss with the Commission whether its past decisions ought to be changed. We were in the business of accepting the Commission's statement that it had already clearly protected the public and that we did not need to move from there. That was a proper basis.
I have made certain alterations, all of which are consistent with scientific advice. I was not prepared to be pushed down the route which I am often asked to go down by the Opposition and by those on the continent who took up the same arguments about going down routes that are not scientifically defensible. Once one does that, one cannot stand anywhere. As soon as one accepts a non-scientific answer, there is no reason not to accept another such answer. To do that would mean that we could not stand where we have been standing. I am proud that the Government are able to say that we have taken the necessary measures before the scare arose and are still taking them and have not added to them because there is no scientific judgment that would lead us to do so. However, if the scientists asked us to take additional measures because there was a change in the information that they received, I would of course take them. That is a sensible basis on which to operate, rather than rushing after any old hare that happens to arise.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The beef industry is most important in the Northern Ireland economy, and worth some £300 million to us. There is rightly resentment in Northern Ireland at the ridiculous, outrageous and hyped-up media coverage of this issue. There is disappointment about the statements from the official Opposition. I regret to have to say that, but it is a fact. On behalf of the Ulster Unionists, I pay tribute to the Minister for having robustly defended the industry. We appreciate what has been achieved in difficult circumstances.
As we in Northern Ireland can identify each animal in each herd, do we not have an opportunity to export both bone-in and bone-out meat? Should there be some


difficulty in getting the market to stabilise, will the Ministry continue to provide intervention support until the market does stabilise?

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. The intervention support will continue while the market continues as it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, intervention is automatically triggered through the management committee on the basis of the market situation in any three regions of the Community—in this case, Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Both that and the promotion support going through the various organisations will continue.
There are great opportunities for British beef, from whatever part of the United Kingdom it comes, because we produce some of the best beef in the world. One of the reasons why it felt so satisfied about the agreement is that it allows carcase meat to continue to be sold throughout the Community. That is important to Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the robust way in which the north of Ireland organisations, the Secretary of State and the farmers' organisations have supported me in this. They could have sought an independent arrangement, but were determined that this should be a United Kingdom answer, and that is what we have.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The farming community and the meat industry in Northern Ireland have heaved a sigh of relief because the Minister has succeeded in getting this illegal ban, which was put on unilaterally and in defiance of the single market arrangement, lifted. The House knows my attitude to the Common Market. There are those who pay lip service to the single market, but when it comes to their national individual interests are prepared to flout it. Have not these people done serious harm to our industry and put a shadow over British beef? Under the rules of the Community, should not they be made to pay for what is a crime under the laws of the treaty?
Are not United Kingdom consumers better protected than those of any other country in the Community? For example, we are not subjected to meat that has been produced from cows that have been fed with concentrates. Yet these very nations that are crying out against Britain are still feeding offal concentrates to their animals. Therefore, our beef is better.
Would not it be monstrous if the Republic of Ireland, which has BSE, could freely export its meat to Europe? The Minister knows that cattle know no border in the island of Ireland, but Northern Ireland could be discriminated against.

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not normally agree with him about much, but this time we can be as one.
I strongly support the concept of the European Community and the single market, and I am a believer in closer relationships between the countries of Europe. That is why I considered this unilateral action so wrong, and why I was able to argue so vehemently against it. It is very noticeable how people who talk easily of solidarity and Community arrangements shift from foot to foot when confronted by those who not only talk of those principles but uphold them.
I pay tribute to the supportive chairmanship of the Minister from the Irish Republic, who was extremely helpful in the negotiations—as, indeed, was Mr.

MacSharry, the Commissioner. We tend to vent our wrath sometimes; let me say how much both helped us to achieve our end.
Although I might have put much of what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) less robustly, I agree that we need to stop the Community descending into old-fashioned retributive arguments when it fears that its markets have been imperilled by the products of certain nations. We have to put up with it: I have stood at this Dispatch Box and refused the Opposition's demands for illegal action on imported eggs in relation to salmonella, and I could argue the case on the strongest ground.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I think that the whole House—and at least some parts of the Opposition—will appreciate that the Minister has sought a communautaire approach to the problem—

Mr. Skinner: Sold out.

Dr. Thomas: —and has not responded to the old-fashioned, unilateralist, nation-state nationalism exhibited by others. I am also grateful to him for expressing appreciation for the role played by the Irish Minister and Mr. MacSharry.
I ask the Minister to respond to the feelings of many of us that the official Opposition have used the issue as a handle to attack the Government. They have not based their attack on the needs of consumers, or the needs of United Kingdom agriculture; they have simply used the matter as another stick with which to beat their opponents. That has prevented them from addressing the real issues.
Will the Minister, for instance, tell us a little more about the Commission's decision to take up the case of the ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants? What will that mean Community-wide? He also mentioned
a research programme … to explore the likelihood of BSE occurring in Community countries other than the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
That is clearly part of the ongoing Community-wide solution to the problem, which will prevent us from becoming involved in sterile arguments about bans imposed on nation-state borders that are part of the old Europe rather than the new Europe that all of us are anxious to build.

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I think that this must be a communautaire answer: after all, we are talking about selling our products throughout the European Community, and we must therefore have a common regime governing how they are sold. We must also base that regime on the clear scientific evidence that British beef is perfectly safe. It needs to be sold, because much of it is some of the best in Europe. I said on French television today—in rather strong terms—that I hoped that French people would now be able to eat the best beef in the world, some of which will come from Wales.
The support of the Welsh industry has been very helpful, and I have been able to attend the negotiations with clear support from the nation as a whole. Although I do not want to pursue all the points made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), the House must realise that most countries come to Community debates representing the entirety of their Governments and Oppositions: they are not faced with


quotations from others by those with whom they are negotiating. We must give serious consideration to that aspect of the matter.
Of course we shall look carefully at the Commission's proposals relating to the ruminant ban. We know that the Dutch have supported us all along, having imposed a ruminant ban much earlier. The Danes are doing so tomorrow; the French asked to be allowed to do so in advance of any decision by the Community in their case, and can do so as long as they do it in a particular form. It appears to me that they will take that view.
My view is that of all the issues that appear to be certain, one is the very real belief that the reason for this disease is the contamination of feed. It is much more sensible that ruminant feeds should not be fed to ruminants. Many of us believe that there is a natural business of that sort—but leaving that aside there is some pretty clear evidence that we should follow, and we shall press the Community on that.
The Community will carry out the research because many worry lest there may be cases that are not so clearly notifiable as they are in this country. We protect our public very much better than any other country does because we face the issues. We have the largest incidence and we have put into place all the measures that the scientists have recommended. That is why we can, with real confidence, support what the chief medical officer says about the safety of British beef.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: The British livestock industry has faced a severe crisis during the past 10 days, and therefore the consumer has also faced a severe crisis—despite the sour grapes of the Opposition. One would think that they did not know what had happened. My right hon. Friend deserves the gratitude of this country—and not only in the short term—for his salutary manner, which means that this will not easily be repeated.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that herds that suffer this tragic disease will not in any way be penalised, as was suggested in earlier reports from Brussels?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend and can confirm that there were proposals of the sort to which he referred. We cannot provide the same protection as we provide for our home produce because we do not do the deboning and cutting up of the carcases when they go in carcase form. Therefore, we have agreed to measures which do not provide the same level of protection—they cannot—but which will help in the ability to sell abroad. The measure will help producers in a number of parts of the country. Everyone recognises that Britain protects everybody by taking every animal with BSE out of the food chain and destroying it, and taking the insides and any specified material out of every animal, even though it is healthy. That is something that we can do for the British consumer that cannot be done by countries that do not have the same cutting practices.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is it not clear that the European Council of Ministers has failed to endorse the Minister's claim that all British beef is safe? It said—the Minister agreed with it—that 95 per cent. of British beef is fit enough to be exported. Has not the right hon. Gentleman replaced a total ban on exports with a creeping

ban? The rate of spread of BSE is doubling every six months. It now affects 5 per cent. of our herds. Within a year it will affect 20 per cent. and within two years all our herds will be affected. Has not the Minister agreed today to a creeping ban? Why does he not take decisive action to eradicate BSE? European countries have their doubts about vertical transmission, which is why the Minister reluctantly agreed that calves of cows with BSE would not be exported. Why does he not introduce a slaughter policy for the calves of BSE-affected cows with 100 per cent. compensation for farmers?

Mr. Gummer: There have been a number of interventions from Members from the Principality, but that was the least helpful one to the consumer or to the farmer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents hear exactly what he said. I shall not do what the hon. Gentleman proposes because the expert scientific committee, the Tyrrell committee—I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a doctor of chemistry—has said that that would not be helpful.

Mr. Williams: Show me the report.

Mr. Gummer: I have published the report and it is in the Library, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Williams: One page.

Mr. Gummer: It may be only one page but there is a great deal more truth on that one page than we have heard from the hon. Gentleman today.
The hon. Gentleman must accept that what he has said is not based on fact at all. He must also come to terms with his conscience and decide whether he is prepared to bear the burden of the sort of things that he is saying when they are wholly contrary to the expert advice that has been given. That must question whether what he says is helpful to consumers or to farmers.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of Conservative Members and all thinking Opposition Members? Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are only 10 Back-Bench Labour Members behind the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and only four of his trouper friends next to him? Despite every detail of every incident being theirs for the asking during the past four years—if the Opposition did not know to ask, they did not know what was happening—they have made up their mind to destroy the small British high street butcher and the small British farmer, all because they think that they will cull a few votes from the consumers who woo them every day for lunch in London. Again, I add my congratulations to those from the packed Conservative Benches and the packed ranks of the miserable 12 Members on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The real issue is that we should not put the interests of farmers, butchers or anyone else ahead of the consumer. Nor must we ever damage the interests of the consumer because we wish to push a particular personal or party point. The real argument here is that the interests of the consumer demand that we publish and act upon the best scientific advice. I clearly committed myself to publish and give the information and I have done so in every particular. I do it day in and day out, but I am always accused by the Opposition of not doing so. I would


certainly not resile from that commitment because if everybody knows the facts, they need have no fear, and that is how to support the consumer.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not care tuppence for the French and the Germans and the Common Market, and I have listened to farmers on "News at Ten", some of whom are not very happy about the deal. Can the Minister explain why the French, Germans and others in the Common Market will have beef that has a seal of approval, while the British consumer will get the scrag end?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. He knows that he is wrong. He heard my comments, and he only makes the remarks he does because he thinks that he might get the odd bit of support in the country. Every consumer in Britain is better protected than any consumer in the whole of the rest of the Community. We have in place a much more comprehensive protection system than it does. The hon. Gentleman may refer to himself when he speaks of scrag end, but he does not refer to the high-quality beef provided for British consumers and cut for British consumers in Britain.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister, particularly on behalf of the Cheale family in my constituency, which is one of the largest exporters of British beef in this country—and whose business has been grievously damaged by the action of our so-called partners on the continent.
The Cheale family informs me that it is inconceivable that the problem does not exist among continental herds. That is confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is himself a beef farmer. I was interested by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister about investigating the problem on the continent. Is he aware of the link between BSE and rabies? Apparently, the physical symptoms manifested by an animal with BSE are very similar to those of rabies. In countries where rabies is endemic, animals are often put down because they are suspected of having rabies when they are probably victims of BSE. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he begins his investigations, so that there is no cover-up of continental cases.

Mr. Gummer: It is certainly true that the United States of America is reconsidering a number of cases of bovine rabies to establish whether they were misdiagnosed and might have been cases of BSE. We must wait to see the results of that work.
I am not one of those who want to understate the seriousness of the problem in Britain by saying, "BSE is found elsewhere as well." I am concerned about the protection of the public. If one wants to protect animal and human health, one must take the best measures possible. One of the measures that we have taken, as have the Dutch and the Danes—it is one which we hope the French will take—is to get rid of ruminant feed for ruminants. I am sure that that is a good step. I hope that the rest of the Community will take the steps now applicable to them in their particular circumstances—because this is a Community decision—if incidents of BSE are found in other countries.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister confirm that there have been more than 11,000 confirmed cases of

BSE in England and Wales alone, and that the number is rising? Is not it the case that bone-in beef from non-infected herds only will be exported to Europe? Does not that mean that a higher proportion of beef from infected herds will remain in this country? Will the Minister answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that one standard of beef will not be exported but will be made available to the British consumer?

Mr. Gummer: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand anything at all about BSE. It does not involve infected herds. It is not like foot and mouth disease. BSE is caught by eating contaminated feed. 'We have always proceeded on the basis of the worst possible case, which is that there might be some kind of maternal transmission. Although we have been unable to prove that, I have always thought it best to take that possibility into account. However, it is not a sensible proposition that BSE affects herds in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The hon. Gentleman should not say such things. If he does, those people who think that he knows about such matters might take his words seriously.
I confirm absolutely to the hon. Gentleman that the meat provided for the consumer in Britain is better protected than the meat provided for the consumer anywhere else in Europe. Therefore, if there are two standards, ours is the higher.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that all farmers, especially livestock producers in Dorset, have nothing but contempt for the damaging politicking that we have had from the Opposition Benches over the past few weeks? He has agreed today to certain quality controls, and to certification for British cattle. Does he hope and expect that our partners within the European Community will move towards acceptance, on a Community basis, of the same controls, because that will be of crucial importance in the future?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is the right direction to move in, but it is obviously more important to deal with the problem where there is a large incidence of it, rather than where there is a very small incidence, which is perhaps localised. That is a situation which is found, for example, in the Republic of Ireland. It might be different if one had two or three cases, which perhaps could be traced back to particular circumstances. I am not one of those who say that because we find one case we have to have a whole paraphernalia of controls in a particular country. What is important about this decision is that if another country found itself in similar circumstances, the measures would apply to it, because this is a Community proposal. It merely says that it is at the moment epidemiologically applicable only in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I am clear that what my hon. Friend says is true.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The House will be aware of my interest in these matters, and I am sure that the whole of the food and farming industry is grateful to my right hon. Friend not only for this achievement—getting the immediate ban lifted—but for the very robust view that he has taken in defence of our great industry during the crisis. Will my right hon. Friend take this


opportunity to explain to the House that the vast majority of meat eaten in Britain today is prime beef, and is not to be confused with cow meat?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is true, and of course the better cuts of meat are those that we eat with greatest enjoyment. All beef sold in this country is safe to eat, and all beef sold in this country is better protected than anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best response from the British farmer to these circumstances would be to sublimate their understandable anger at continental protectionism into a commercial challenge to the continental producers on their own ground, based on the superior competitiveness, the greater quality and the undoubted safety of British beef?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is true, especially as we have been able to make a big change in the green pound, which will make it much easier for that to happen. I remind my hon. Friend that the reason that we have been able to get that market for our beef is the Community institutions, and it is a triumph not only for the work done by the Commissioner and the President but for the Community itself. It was very nearly a disaster for the Community, but has turned out to show that its institutions can work.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that beef producers in Sussex haye reason to be very grateful for his tenacity and determination in defence of their industry? Does he think it reprehensible of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), to have encouraged needless anxiety about BSE for imagined political gain, when the Government have taken the best available professional advice, followed it to the letter, and informed the public scrupulously throughout the whole episode?

Mr. Gummer: I believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that the encouragement of fear when there is no need to be frightened is something that we should all avoid. In so far as it has not been avoided, it has not helped the consumer or the industry.

Mr. Conal Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the farmers of Yorkshire, who will be delighted by this evening's news, that the media have been misled by the mischievous comments of misguided scientists, particularly in West Yorkshire? As he has referred specifically to the EC, is he arguing tomorrow with the EFTA countries so that the ban will be removed there in the interests of great British beef?

Mr. Gummer: I just think that we ought to make a distinction between scientists and pundits. The scientists who are represented on all the committees in the European Community and in Britain have wholly supported the Government's position because the Government have followed their advice in all particulars. Therefore, we must hold the scientific view and not the view of those who seek to put forward their idiosyncratic views by way of the media rather than giving their information to the scientists, their peer group, who can judge it.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the major beef exporters in my constituency to whom I have spoken this evening, as considerable damage was being inflicted on their business and had the ban not been lifted there would have been many bankruptcies among farmers and livestock exporters? In his discussions with the French Minister, was he able to get a guarantee that there will be no other action by French farmers such as blockading ports to prevent our beef from reaching French shops? Did he discuss with him sending our our own veterinary experts to look into the problem of la vache tremblante?

Mr. Gummer: No doubt the problem of la vache tremblante, if it exists, will be examined by the Community under the arrangements that I announced earlier. My discussions with the French Minister were sometimes rather sharp and clear. I made clear what I thought about the entire procedure of acting unilaterally and not going to the Community to get this result without the action that took place. When one has reached a conclusion which has been supported across the board, it is better to forget about that and proceed from there. Therefore, I have made it quite clear that we expect vigorous action to lift any blockade attempted on the port of Cherbourg.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The statement has now been running for nearly an hour, but I will call those hon. Members who wish to speak. I ask them not to repeat what has been said before. With respect to the Minister, he has received sufficient congratulations, so I ask that we have questions now.

Mr. Andy Stewart: May I thank my right hon. Friend for standing up for British consumers and farmers in the face of the French allegations against British beef? Does he agree that it had more to do with placating the French farmers than with British beef? Will he confirm that those French senior vets that came here last week to discuss BSE were junior officials who knew nothing whatsoever about the disease?

Mr. Gummer: I think that we can now draw a veil over the situation which we have now suitably ended. The French equivalent of the National Farmers Union made it clear that it considered the ban to be the result of its own pressures which were entirely to protect the French market for itself. That is what we said and the ban has now been lifted. I hope that this will never occur again.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on us all to play a part in restoring confidence in beef production and consumption? Furthermore, will he confirm that today's meeting in Brussels revealed that there is no evidence whatsoever that this dreadful disease is transmitted horizontally within herds and, therefore, no decisions should be made that will act to the detriment of those herds which unfortunately have had an affected animal?

Mr. Gummer: I can confirm that the scientific committee made it absolutely clear that the evidence showed that no such decisions ought to be made, so there is no question of that. But it would be quite wrong to attempt to raise people's confidence in British beef unless we were utterly sure that that confidence was properly placed. We are utterly sure. We have the chief medical


officer's clear statement. We have the clear statements of the Tyrrell committee and the Southwood committee and we have a Government who have carried out all that they have asked us to do to protect public health. That is why we can try to restore the confidence and why we can, with some realism, ask those who have taken a different path in the past now to accept their responsibilities.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the farmers in Kent will not merely thank him for what he has done, but will applaud his stand on behalf of the farming community, as will the consumers applaud his assurances? Does he agree that the negotiations have revealed two points? First, they have stripped away the veneer on the Opposition Front Bench and revealed the opportunism and treachery that lie there. Secondly, they have revealed that this country is the good European and that, in this case, the French, the Germans and the Italians have sought to break the law. Is it not time that the Commission sought to enforce the existing directives before applying others to the Community?

Mr. Gummer: The last point is not necessarily the result of the negotiations. The negotiations have shown that when countries have tried to act unilaterally, the institutions have eventually enabled them to come together to find an answer. That is what we have done. The answer is satisfactory to us and the others have agreed to support it. The Community emerges stronger in the end than it was before. I see no reason why those things that are better done together should not be done together. There are many things that we do not yet do together which we could do together.
If we decide to do something in common, we must accept that that means that we do it even when it is embarrassing and unhappy because our farmers do not like it. That is why it was wrong for the others to take action. They were saying, "We keep to the Community rules in fair weather, but if there is a bit of rockiness and there are a few sheep in the streets of Paris, we take different measures." They have resiled from that position and I am pleased about that. We must now move on without referring to the matter further.

Mr. Alistair Burt: In his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see this week's edition of Farming News, which came out today? It is a weekly that has sometimes been fierce in its criticism of the Government, but today it carries a survey showing that 60 per cent. of farmers questioned expressed full confidence in my right hon. Friend's policy. Does not that speak volumes for the way in which he has defended the agriculture and consumer interests in the crisis? Is it not in sharp contrast with the failure of the Opposition to defend either agriculture or the consumer? Is that why they have been so poorly supported tonight? They made miserable efforts, once again, to undermine my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gummer: I had seen the article and it was rather cheering because the latest poll suggested that the figure was 6 per cent. It is at least a considerable improvement and we can, perhaps, manage the other 40 per cent. some time. It is important for farmers to recognise that they cannot be supported against the consumer. The only way in which the farming community can be properly supported is if we put the consumer first and foremost

because the consumer is the market that the farmer has to get. That is why I believe that the Ministry is a consumer Ministry and why we must put the consumer first.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he deserves the appreciation of the whole House for the way in which he has held up the interests of British farming in the attacks against it by many foreign farming communities, whose standards are considerably lower than ours? Nevertheless, does he agree that there has been damage to the beef exporting industry and that that damage has been caused primarily by the fact that the French took action that was illegal, opportunistic and cynical, and that had nothing to do with the health regime, as they pretended? It was purely to try to protect their own farmers. If the Single European Act means anything, is there not a strong case for at least some compensation from the French Government to British farmers who have suffered as a result?

Mr. Gummer: The most important thing is to get the trade back and sell the beef. That is our objective, arid that is why we sought to do it as quickly as we have done. The best thing for British farmers now is to make up in the coming weeks the market which they have lost in the past. They will benefit very much from the united support of the House to rebuild the confidence that there should be in beef. The real message is "Let us get together to ensure that the consumer recognises the truth and the facts and, therefore, buys the beef."

Mr. Michael Stern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I rarely intervene on his statements because I represent consumers rather than producers? Nevertheless, I thank him for his action today, which has protected the favourite meat of the majority of my constituents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only the farmer but the taxpayer has suffered as a result of the illegal and regrettably typical action of the French, German and Italian Governments in this matter? Will he continue to pursue through the Community the possibility of compensation to the British taxpayer for the extra costs that will fall on the British taxpayer through the Community contribution to support the beef market that was illegally damaged by the action of those Governments?

Mr. Gummer: It would be difficult to apportion the cost that my hon. Friend is talking about. There must be many others, too, who probably feel today that they have contributed towards that reduction in the market. Now that we have the clear scientific evidence in Britain, in the European Community and from the chief medical officer, we should base our actions and statements on it and not seek to give credence to the personal views of one or two individuals.

Mr. Richard Alexander: The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on remaining in such sparkling form after battling with the Community for two whole days and answering questions for more than an hour tonight. What would have been the outcome had the delegation been led by the official spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)?

Mr. Gummer: I must say that I am not given to contemplate either the impossible or the intolerable.

Mr. William Hague: May I, in winding up, ask my right hon. Friend to assure farmers that he and his Ministry will keep a close eye on the French and Germans to ensure that they do not seek to prevent British beef from entering their shops by means that are more underhand or less publicised than those attemped so far?

Mr. Gummer: I am in the business of making sure that the agreement that we have works. I repeat that this is one of those things that shows that Community institutions can and do work. As we have large markets in the rest of Europe for our agricultural products, I prefer to encourage the whole industry to go out and sell British beef, dairy products and farm products generally. Many parts of the industry are not yet doing as well as they could, and I want them to go out and show the rest of Europe that 1992 is the year in which we expect to make our farm products the best and most widely used in Europe.

Orders of the Day — Rates (North Yorkshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Michael Alison: My starting point in this brief debate is to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), to recognise that, prima facie, there is something odd about the revaluation in North Yorkshire. The top 20 rating authorities, in terms of boosts shown in rateable values for the whole of England and Wales, contain no fewer than five such authorities—one quarter of the total—from just one county, North Yorkshire. Of the other 15 high fliers, 14 are in the south or west of England. It would be easier to be reconciled to these five northern high fliers if they were a north of England phenomenon as a whole. But they are not. They are a unique North Yorkshire phenomenon.
Go a bit further north—Darlington, Middlesbrough, Gateshead—and one immediately finds that the revaluation increases are half those in North Yorkshire. Go a bit further south—Leicester and Derby, for example,—and one finds the same: revaluations among the lowest in England and Wales, and half those in North Yorkshire. It really will not do to say that the Selby revaluation, for example, started from a very low base. Lower than Gateshead and Middlesbrough, or Leicester? I doubt it.
The kind of North Yorkshire revaluation boosts I am complaining about can be vividly illustrated. The most striking example comes from a small engineering business—literally a cottage industry—in the village of Bishopsthorpe, near York. One of this business's separately rated premises, a unit of 114 sq m—say the size of four lock-up garages—has undergone a revaluation from a figure of £43 in 1973 to £6,750 in the latest list. Have rents in Main street, Bishopsthorpe, for tiny business premises of this kind, really been driven up by some unimaginable, maniacal competition of frantic entrepreneurs, by 157 times what they were in 1973? It seems inherently unlikely and implausible.
Another bad case comes from Selby town itself, where a butcher with a back-street premises, not a prime town site, has found his 1973 rateable value of £236 boosted to £5,500. To make matters worse, the same butcher has two shops in Selby, and the other one has undergone an increase from a higher original figure—£245—to a new lower figure of £2,500.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way for just a moment in this important debate. Does he accept that part of the problem is that the Labour party undertook to carry out a revaluation five years later and fudged it? I am sorry that no Labour Members are present. The problem stems from the original point that Labour should have carried out a revaluation five years later, but did not. The family businesses to which my right hon. Friend has referred in his constituency and those in my constituency of York, adjoining my right hon. Friend's constituency, could, like those in Ryedale, benefit enormously from the suggestion that I have already made to my hon. Friend the Minister, whereby family businesses could pay at a lower rate based on corporation tax, as already exists.

Mr. Alison: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. The revaluation and the long delay are Labour responsibilities and are at the root of the problem. It is a good thing that all parties are now agreed that the revaluation should have taken place.
If North Yorkshire revaluations are so uniformly and uniquely high in the north of England, how come one can get such inexplicable variations for similar premises in such a tiny urban compass as the town of Selby as in the case of the two butcher's shops that I have just described? The chief executive of the Selby district council has supplied me with a list of 57 business premises in and around Selby where the multiplier is 25 times the 1973 rateable value.
I am bound to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that these atypical boosts in rateable value are a very serious matter in the Selby district and in north Yorkshire generally. One reason for which rents may have risen in the district and the county is that rates in earlier days were low—thanks to frugal Conservative authorities. Rents therefore tended to rise, because there was, as it were, some cost-slack in the overall economics of businesses, thanks to low rates. But now the valuation officer comes along and builds a new, far higher ratable value on those inflated rental figures—piling Pelion on Ossa, to use the classical phrase—as it were. The only way in which this vicious circle can be broken is for the trader to go out of business, and for rents to adjust downwards. But the newcomer to a tenancy, of course, gets no transitional relief. So we seem in North Yorkshire, uniquely in the north of England, literally to have fashioned an engine of economic depression by the revaluation, ironically so beneficial in Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole.
I should add that my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and for York (Mr. Gregory), who just intervened, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) all corroborate what I am saying. Indeed, they have all helped me to prepare my case by giving examples from their constituencies. I make the case for them as well as for myself. I should also add that the chairman of the Selby and district chamber of trade, Mr. J. D. Lofthouse, has told me that, since the new business rates became known in the Selby district, 140 businesses in the district have either closed or transferred or are on the market.
There is one particularly vulnerable group in the Selby district, and more widely in North Yorkshire. I refer to small business premises, particularly those where the proprietor lives "over the shop", and has a rates liability apportioned between community charge and business rate. Many of these small businesses, as my hon. Friend knows, survive on low turnover and small profit margins by dint of long hours and unremitting service. They are a section of the commercial world which the Government have singled out by all sorts of initiatives and incentives in the small business field, to support and encourage. But the North Yorkshire revaluation is having precisely the opposite effect: it is depressing them. I single out in particular the small corner shop and the sub-post office.
The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has been kind enough to furnish me, from its Yorkshire office, with some samples of complaints and representations that it has received from North Yorkshire members about the new valuation lists. From a bundle of about 30 such letters that

I have seen and that I have here, no fewer than 11 refer to the possibility or likelihood of their packing the job in, and going out of business.
The Appleton Roebuck sub-post office, for example, finds that its ratable value has risen from £51 to £1,600, an increase of over 30 times. Have rents really risen 30 times in this small village since 1973? Another example—from Scarborough—shows a ratable value increase of similar proportions, from £157, for a small village post office, to £3,250. Many similar cases can be cited. And my hon. Friend will know that the special vulnerability of sub-post offices is that they cannot simply raise prices to defray costs. They labour under the fixed price regime of the Post Office tariff. No wonder many are contemplating closure.
Against that background, I urge my hon. Friend to consider four points and courses of action. First, he should double-check with the York valuation office that it has got things right. To err, after all, is human; to correct is a ministerial prerogative. I urge my hon. Friend officially to encourage small businesses in North Yorkshire to appeal, and to encourage the York valuation office to go out and meet the appellants halfway and more than halfway.
Secondly, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which provides for local authorities to reduce, or remit entirely, the uniform business rate, where hardship is threatened. I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that that provision is there precisely to temper the wind to such businesses as struggling sub-post offices and village corner shops and that he will today explicitly encourage local authorities to make generous use of those powers.
Thirdly, I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that transitional relief, welcome and essential as it is for businesses in the Selby district and in North Yorkshire, is set for a long innings on the statute book, and not just for the next four years until the 1995 revaluation.
Will my hon. Friend consider whether some fundamental exemption provision under the uniform business rate might not be desirable and feasible for smaller businesses, akin to the exemption provided to smaller businesses in relation to VAT? There is no rationality in providing admirable small business incentives and exemptions, as with VAT, with the right hand if the left hand promptly takes them all away through rating.
This debate has not been a criticism of the uniform business rate itself, or of the recent revaluation associated with it. I have already observed that that has been endorsed by all parties in the House. The uniform business rate and the revaluation have been substantially beneficial to Yorkshire and Humberside. No, my complaint and that of my hon. Friends is about the quirks and anomalies of the revaluation uniquely to North Yorkshire. It is that to which I hope my hon. Friend will apply his mind.

Mr. John Greenway: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the Minister?

Mr. Alison: indicated assent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): indicated assent.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on securing the debate. I am grateful to him for allowing me to endorse briefly some of the points that he has raised.
Ryedale is one of the five North Yorkshire districts to which my right hon. Friend referred. He mentioned the district valuer in York; I should like to pay tribute to him for the co-operation he has shown in meeting traders from my constituency. I know that that is also true of my colleagues in neighbouring constituencies.
One statistic concerns me and goes to the heart of the problem. The district valuer, on his own admission, expects that, of the 15,000 or so business premises in his valuation area, no fewer than 10,000 will appeal. Such is the scale of the problem.
Many of the examples that my right hon. Friend cited are equally prevalent in my constituency. An increase of three or four times above the present level of rates is all too commonplace, and many small shops have been badly affected.
The Minister should please, please think again about phasing the transitional arrangements beyond five years. An early announcement about that could help confidence in small businesses a great deal. Will the Minister also look carefully at the arrangements for small village shops, especially sub-post offices to which my right hon. Friend drew attention, where people live on the premises? Many such shops consist of one room in the house and we should re-examine the de minimis provisions to ensure that the shops that we are trying to support in every other way are not put out of business. The amount gained from such small businesses represents a small contribution to the overall business rate fund, but it is crucial to those businesses.
Can my hon. Friend also assure us that there will be a review of the valuation in North Yorkshire if the early appeals suggest that the tone of rent has been misjudged? Will he also recognise that many owner-occupiers face ratable values that are based on rental values that no small business could possibly hope to afford were they expected to pay them? Will he also consider allowing the transitional relief to be available to the new owner of a business? That should be done on the property basis and not just on the owner basis.
We are the party of small business and are proud to be so, but many of our most loyal supporters are beginning to doubt it. They need strong reassurances that they have not misjudged the situation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for giving me the opportunity to respond to what I know are long-standing and real concerns about the effects of the new business rating system, and particularly the revaluation, in North Yorkshire. I hope that I shall be able to allay some of those concerns.
As my right hon. Friend recognises, the key factor for businesses in North Yorkshire has been the revaluation of properties on the basis of rental values at 1 April 1988. Indeed, the increases for businesses in all districts except York are entirely attributable to that revaluation; locally set poundages in those districts in 1989–90 were between

3 per cent. and 9·5 per cent. above the national average. In York itself, where the locally set poundage in 1989–90 was just I per cent. below the national average, the revaluation accounts for all but the smallest part of any increase.
With the retention of non-domestic rates, ratable values had to be kept up to date. That was why the revaluation was carried out. It had, as my right hon. Friend recognises, widespread and all-party agreement. It was indefensible that businesses were still being taxed on 1973 property values as recently as March of this year, 17 years after the base date for that valuation. To continue to ignore changing circumstances would have been to expect businesses in the less prosperous regions to go on subsidising indefinitely those in more buoyant areas.
Given the lapse of time since the last revaluation, it is inevitable that there are some large increases in ratable values, as well as large reductions. I know that my right hon. Friend accepts that that is the natural consequence of the extent to which market rents rose between 1973 and 1988, but I understand his concern that the percentage increase in values in North Yorkshire has been greater than elsewhere. I believe, however, that there is a clear explanation for that.
While it is true that all the local authority areas in North Yorkshire have above average revaluation factors for most property types, especially for shops, it is equally true that they start from a very low base because, relative to other parts of the country, non-domestic ratable values in the area in the 1973 valuation list were low. I can best illustrate that with some examples.
In Selby, for example, although shops throughout the district have an average revaluation factor of 13·9 compared with the national average of 9·5, the average new ratable value is still only £6,777, which is 53 per cent. of the national average of £12,762. I understand that, in the town of Selby itself, the revaluation factor for shops is only just above the national average. The same point can be made about offices and warehouses in the district.
A similar picture emerges if one looks at the other districts in North Yorkshire, with the exception of York, which has both a high revaluation factor and high average ratable values, attributable to the considerable rise in open market rent levels in that city since 1973.
Taking North Yorkshire as a whole, despite an average revaluation factor for all properties of 12·1, compared with the national average of 8·1, the average new ratable value of £10,978 is only 60 per cent. of the national average of £18,081—lower than the shire county average of £15,011, lower than the Yorkshire and Humberside regional average of £11,826, and lower than the average for 27 of the 38 other shire county areas.
My right hon. Friend expressed doubts about whether the ratable value base in North Yorkshire in 1973 was lower than that of Gateshead and Middlesbrough or Leicester. Most definitely that was the case. The average ratable value for business premises in North Yorkshire in 1973 was just over £900, whereas the equivalent figures for Gateshead, Middlesbrough and Leicester were around £1,600, £1,850 and £1,975 respectively. What has happened since is that rental values, and hence ratable values, have risen more than average in North Yorkshire and by significantly less in the areas that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
My right hon. Friend has also highlighted a number of cases in his constituency where rates have risen significantly. There is not time to go into all the cases, so


I shall deal with the first one mentioned by my right hon. Friend—the small engineering business in Bishopsthorpe. My right hon. Friend said that they appeared to have experienced an increase in ratable value of 157 times. As I understand it, that is not the case, because the base from which the value has risen to £6,750 is more properly £388. The figure of £43 mentioned by my right hon. Friend is attributable to only a part of the premises prior to a merger which produced the property that was subsequently revalued. That illustrates the difficulty of taking individual cases and using them as a basis for saying that there has been a dramatic increase. Obviously, there has been a substantial increase, but it has been nothing like the increase of 157 times that my right hon. Friend's figures indicate.
The increase that has taken place means that the rate liability has gone up from about £1,050 in 1989–90 to £2,350. However, with transition, this year's bill will be only about £1,300—an increase of about £250 in the first year. While I do not deny that the property is facing a significant increase as a result of the revaluation, the picture is not quite as black as my right hon. Friend has painted. Threfore, I hope that he will agree that, in relative terms, businesses in North Yorkshire, with the understandable exception of York, do not face as great a burden as he had feared.
While I cannot, of course, say that no individual ratable value will be found to be excessive, I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is no reason to believe that values generally are incorrect. He also asks me to encourage small businesses to appeal against their ratable values and to encourage the district valuer at York to meet them halfway, or, indeed, more than halfway. In view of what I have just said, I know that he will not expect me to advocate a wholesale challenge to rating lists in North Yorkshire.
I understand, however, that the district valuer at York has already had meetings with the Greater York chamber of trade, the Selby small businesses association and the Selby chamber of trade—a meeting which my right hon. Friend attended. As we have heard in the debate, there has also been a meeting in the Palace of Westminster to discuss the revaluation with my right hon. Friend and some of our hon. Friends. I know that the district valuer is happy to continue to meet district associations. However, if ratepayers remain convinced that their new ratable value is unfair, they may propose to the district valuer before 1 October this year that it be altered. If the district valuer does not accept the proposal, it will be transferred to the local valuation and community charge tribunal as an appeal. They should do this rather than seek to pursue their case informally with the district valuer in order to protect their right to have the matter decided by a VCCT if agreement cannot be reached.
Although rates have gone up for most businesses in Selby and elsewhere in North Yorkshire, we have to take into account the transitional arrangements. The whole purpose of those arrangements was to ensure that the impact of the new bills did not have to be faced overnight. The arrangements phase in the higher increases and I know that the details of the phasing arrangements are familiar. The small business transition scheme will benefit between 77 and 87 per cent. of business premises in the county, with the exception of York, where 65 per cent. will benefit. That shows that a high percentage of businesses in

York and North Yorkshire will benefit from the transitional arrangements which, at 15 per cent. in real terms, affect smaller businesses.
These arrangements will last for a least five years, and we have powers to extend them beyond 1995. I remind hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House on 25 April that the Government would be
prepared to extend the transitional period if, after the next revaluation, small businesses face a steep increase on top of the 15 per cent. tranches of increase that will have occurred in the intervening period."—[Official Report, 25 April 1990; Vol. 171, c. 359.]
My right hon. Friend has argued that, between 1973 and 1990, rent levels reflected lower rates in North Yorkshire, but he is concerned that increased rates will not result in lower rents. He is right to make the connection but he should not worry that the link will suddenly be broken. Any property expert could confirm that there is an inverse relationship between rent and rates, because businesses usually take a view of the overall occupancy costs that they can afford; so if rates rise, this will exert downward pressure on rents. This does not necessarily mean that rents will fall, but they are certainly likely to increase less than would otherwise have been the case. This should help even businesses with leases containing upward-only rent reviews, because it would moderate the rent increases which they would otherwise face.
Lower rental levels in comparative terms should feed through to produce lower ratable values at the 1995 revaluation. The result may be that many of the bigger increases emerging from the revaluation will never, in practice, take effect. I know that that will be consolation to the businesses affected.
My right hon. Friend has asked me to encourage local authorities to make generous use of their powers to reduce or remit rates on grounds of hardship. I can certainly confirm that such powers could be used to protect businesses such as sub-post offices and village shops from closure, but local authorities alone can make decisions of this sort, and they are required by law, before doing so, to have regard to the interests of their community charge payers.
The purpose of the uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation is to remove distortions in the competitive position of business caused by widely varying rate poundages and the long delay since the last revaluation. The aim has been to redistribute the burden of business rates more fairly, not to increase it in real terms. To achieve this we have set the uniform business rate for 1990–91 at a level of 34·8p, which will ensure that we raise broadly the same amount of rates in real terms from private businesses and the nationalised industries as a whole as in 1989–90.
Under the new system, all businesses will benefit from the assurance, written into statute, that the rate poundage cannot rise each year by more than the rate of inflation, and may rise by less. This compares with the old system by which, between 1979–80 and 1989–90, non-domestic rate poundages rose by around 37 per cent. more than inflation nationally and by between 34 per cent. and 45 per cent. more than inflation in North Yorkshire. This cannot happen in future and all businesses are getting a good long-term deal from the new system, since they are now protected from real increases in the cost of local authority


services. These will now fall on the community charge payer, to whom authorities are accountable through the ballot box, or to the Exchequer.
We estimate that, if the old system had been in place this year, in the light of the local authorities' spending decisions, there would have been an additional burden on

businesses of about £1 billion. That is the extent of the savings from which businesses will be able to benefit in the first year of the new arrangements.
I hope that I have been able to allay some of my right hon. Friend's concerns.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.